1 hatchery for fingerlings

[Chaz]

Why shouldn't PFBC dedicate 1 hatchery for mostly trout fingerlings, they could then continue with the program on suiable water. Just a though.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

This is what Ohio does with their few brown trout fisheries, and quite frankly, I enjoy it a lot more. The fish densities are higher and you catch a lot more fish in the 6-9" range and the larger fish are more of a real trophy than the pellet fed pigs that I tend to catch on PA streams.

 

[Fishidiot]

It's a good idea. My guess would be that the folks at PFBC don't regard fingerlings as license sellers.

 

[Chaz]

My best guess is that they just don't know what sells licenses anymore, otherwise they be doing whatever it is that sells licenses. I think they are so worried about the hatchery system falling apart that they can't see the big picture. How is it that a state ( AR) with a couple of rivers in a place where you have to travel for a day or more to get there can sell more out of state licenses then PA. We're right here in the heart of the nations population center in the east a few hours from NY, NJ and only half a day from most other places in the NE.

 

[RLeeP]

>>How is it that a state ( AR) with a couple of rivers in a place where you have to travel for a day or more to get there can sell more out of state licenses then PA. >>

Maybe because:

1) They've done a better job of marketing themselves as a destination.

2) Big fish

3) While trout may be the current big thing in the Ozarks, I think we have to remember that before this was really the case to the point it is today, the area was (and still is to some extent) a big largemouth bass destination as well. Lakes like Bull Shoals and others have been durable HQ bass fiseries for a long time.

>>We're right here in the heart of the nations population center in the east a few hours from NY, NJ and only half a day from most other places in the NE.>>

Maybe in the over all picture, this is as much of a minus as it is a plus, at least to the traveling angler.

In any event, I don't think the reaspns have much to do with fingerling fisheries.

 

[JackM]

Add to RLeeP's suggestions the fact that in January and February when our creeks are frozen, they are enjoying air temps in the 60s on average. And did he mention BIG fish?

 

[Squaretail]

I could swear they ARE doing what sells licenses. Lots of big rainbows and palominos put under bridges waiting to be freezer burnt. From what I saw at the stream and in my store, the truck chasers were plenty happy overall.
Ofcourse it hasn't been to good for flyfishermen overall(at least at the reg waters) but hopefully that will change. I know it will in general as it always does when the neck-snappers lose interest and leave the trout waters, but there is noticably less trout this year in my neck of the woods. Which will affect Fishing, Spring, and Penns creeks because I have a feeling I'll be going there more than usual for decent fishing and I'm sure I wont be alone.
Fingerling hatchery? God willing.

 

[Mike]

It is unclear to me where you got the idea that there is a shortage of fingerling trout to be stocked in "suitable waters." If anything, from my perspective, there is a shortage of suitable waters, not a shortage of fingerling trout. Fingerlings have been stocked in many waters around the Commonwealth over the past 30 years or so and it has been the somewhat unusual flowing waters where they have been successful to the extent that they have been able to provide a fishery (a desirable fish population for fishing and people fishing over it). From the standpoint of trout reproduction, it is difficult to improve on "Mother Nature" in most cases through either fingerling or fry stockings. Numerous fingerlings are stocked in the spring and early summer; the relatively few fingerlings that were once stocked in fall (such as Tulpehocken Ck) are no longer available in that the space required to raise these fish is now needed to raise adult trout with the new objective of an 11 inch average length. (In the Tulpehocken case it is highly likely that spring stocked fingerlings would not survive the warm summer temps and competition for cool lies in a quantity that would provide a desirable fishery. Heck, it is difficult enough to get spring stocked fingerlings to survive in more hospitable environments).

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

i would think that the lack of suitable waters would mean more fingerlings stocked in the suitable waters. is this the case?

 

[Wulff-Man]

Where do you guys think they should stock fingerlings? There is a lot of opposition here to stocking trout in wild trout streams, but they would be the only place that you would expect fingerlings to survive, for the most part. Is it acceptable because fingerlings don’t have as much of an impact on wild trout (at least the adults, anyway)? I think the original logic for the Tully was that the tailwater would have the temps and habitat to support trout year round, but that it didn’t have the habitat to support reproduction, so it made sense to stock fingerlings.

Mike, can you tell us the circumstances where the PFBC would think that fingerling stocking is appropriate and worthwhile?

 

[Squaretail]

I would wonder why Stony (Dauphin) wouldn't be an option. Now that the trout have been holding over and theres only a few natives/wilds near the headwaters for the most part, that leaves quite a few miles above the gate where they dont stock and isnt laden with trout at all. I would think fingerlings could get a good start there without a lot of competition or angling pressure.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

i agree squaretail. i also belive that stream needs some kind of special regulation also. i like it more than clarks. above the gate through the woods there is not many trout. (just grandmas house :-D) but i think some fingerlings would survive up there. at least it would be worth a try!

 

[RLeeP]

I'd like to see the Commission try an experiment with brown trout fingerlings reared from wild, rather than hatchery stock. This has been very successful in both WI and Iowa is establishing self-sustaining BT fisheries in streams with good water quality and chemical characteristics, but somewhat insufficient spawning habitat. I've been away for a while now and don't really have an educated opinion as to where they should get the wild brood fish to do this. But based on what I used to think I knew..., places like the Logan Branch, some sections of Spring Creek, Elk Creek or maybe Valley Creek could contribute brood fish and the fishery, at least as anglers measure it, would probably never know the difference.

Then I'd like to see them put the fingerlings in the sorts of streams where they have been effective in the Midwest or at least what would seem to me to be similar waters. Maybe, in PA terms, good places would be the upper ends of higher alkalinity freestones like some in Crawford or Mercer or western Venango or northern Potter or McKean counties or eastern Fulton county. Or maybe in some of the limestone sections that have decent temps and good water quality, but have trouble turning their own fish. Maybe some of the stocked sections of the Kish or heck, there has to be 50 limestones in the SC or SE regions of the state where this could be tried as an experiment.

Like I say, I've been gone a while and picking PA streams for this sort of thing is hard on my ageing and eroding memory...

I only know that in the right sort of streams out here, it has produced some very strong results. I'd like to see it tried back home inPA, even if just in a few places to gauge potential..

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

Maybe, in PA terms, good places would be the upper ends of higher alkalinity freestones like some in Crawford or Mercer or western Venango or northern Potter or McKean counties or eastern Fulton county.

Yes, please. I'll take seconds of that lasagna.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

i think a better way would be more experiments with (god help me one this one) vibert boxes. if we could find streams suitable for the eggs to hatch and the fry to survive ....that would be the best way to raise a wild brown trout population. very expensive though.

 

[Squaretail]

I cant think of one limestoner thats capable here in the south central that mother nature isn't already stocking with decent browns except Trindle Springs which is now virtually void of holding water. And dont the high alkalinity streams you speak of already have decent brookie populations? I would think Mike and his gang take that into consideration before they start putting fingerlings on top of them.
I have never got to see one of those boxes but it seems intriguing. Do you have a clue to success rate?

 

[RLeeP]

>>i think a better way would be more experiments with (god help me one this one) vibert boxes. if we could find streams suitable for the eggs to hatch and the fry to survive ....that would be the best way to raise a wild brown trout population. very expensive though.>>

I don't think I've ever heard or read of a clear-cut and relatively unqualified success towards these goals through the use of the Vibert boxes. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but generally, I've been under the impression that these things were not all they were originally hoped to be.

>>And dont the high alkalinity streams you speak of already have decent brookie populations? >>

Generally, no. At least not the streams I was thinking of.

Just as an additional thought:

I should add that in many of the cases where the wild fingerling program has helped establish wild BT pops. in the Midwest, it has been accompanied by some instream habitat work that helped produce at least some additional spawning habitat. That's certainly a portion of the difference. But only a portion. The main factors seem to be that the wild fingerlings have a much higher survival rate than stocked fingerlings and that they seem to be much more able to successfully reproduce in less than optimal habitat than their stocked counterparts so long as other conditions in the stream in question are amenable to trout survival. A little like that "life finds a way" Jeff Goldblum quote from Jurrasic Park

Of course, to try this in Pennsylvania, even on an experimental basis, would require at least some modification in the Commission's prevailing philosophy of CWF management to choose to actively assist the establishment of a wild trout population in a given stream as opposed to maintaining it via stocking. While it may be a bit of an oversimplification to say so, current (and long term since Operation Future at any rate) Commission policy seems to be that wild trout fisheries occur, they are not actively sought or enabled. But once the exist, I think the Commission deserves a lot of credit for all they do and have historically done to help them remain viable. In any event, there is no right or wrong policy here, IMO. There are only our preferences and any attendant limiting economic realities.. Fishing has a lot of different definitions. My definition happens to value wild fisheries over those that are stocked. Not everybody agrees, obviously.

All the same, I'd be curious to see how something like this might work in PA. I've love to see a small pilot project to test the possibilities.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

heres one look at the playing mother trout section. it states that it has worked to some degree
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wqp/wqstandards/tmdl/DONEGAL.pdf

90 percent of the wild trout you catch in donegal came from these boxes. they run down from the headwaters looking for better holding water. right into the fly area! :-D

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

ya squaretail i wouldnt stock a stream with a decent pop of brook trout. but there are some streams here in the sepa that have good water temps year round, good habitat and are unpolluted. for some reason are void of trout. probably due to overharvest decades ago. i think these streams would be good canidates for study and if they can hold trout and also have enough "open water", maybe this would be an option.