Bad news for Erie steelhead smolts

ryguyfi

ryguyfi

Active member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
4,796
http://www.goerie.com/article/20120131/NWPAOUT10/301319939/Mike-Bleech%3A-Raceway-disease-dooms-trout-in-Erie-area-co-op-nurseries
 
Darn.

To be honest, I've often marveled how fish hatcheries can be so effective at keeping disease out of their stocks (when you consider how crowded they are). I suppose it's inevitable that something like this will occur from time to time.
 
At least they found it before they put the fish in the streams. Yet another flaw of having large hatcheries with absurd numbers of fish.
 
how many fish does a hatchery have to hold to be "absurd"?

what would be an acceptable number?


edit: I reread my post and let me say, I'm not being argumentative. I was sincerely curious if you meant all hatchery populations are absurd or if a hatchery program on a smaller scale would have fewer flaws/risks, and therefore be acceptable? I'm not pro-stocking.

I would also have to say, this is a good reason to not stock over wild fish populations.
 
what... thats 6.5% of the fish stocked each year????

drop in the bucket
 
It is easy, do what the pfbc did at the big spring hatchery and add diquat and formaldehyde to the raceways and simply dump it out into the streams to kill the strem vegetation and insects. Diquat is a herbicide and formaldehyde a poison.

Sorry, could not resist this one. But the pfbc is a scientific organization big ha. Actually like the biologists, they are good people and get it but they are pawns of the political appointees who have zero experience managing natural resources,
 
It may only be 6.5%, but with the numbers already significantly down, it's an unwelcome hit.
 
steliejim wrote:
It may only be 6.5%, but with the numbers already significantly down, it's an unwelcome hit.
Click to expand...

OK. If we had only 100 fish return this year, and we have 93 return next year, are we going to notice it?

So here here is my big question: Is it actually worthwhile for any volunteer organizations to raise and stock fish into the Erie tribs when their contribution is dwarfed by what the PAFBC plants? Would their money be better spent on gaining or retaining stream access?

I think this should be taken into consideration for all co-op hatcheries statewide, not just those involving steelhead.

Kev

 
3CU and WCC stock bigger and IMHO better imprinted fish. The locals up here know these fish probably are the majority of fish that return. PAFBC may stock more but the majority of these are raised out side the water shed and are much smaller when stocked, and return but not necessarily back to PA tributaries.
Studies are in the works to how many return to pa waters vs stray away, from both programs. IMHO returns will drop off noticeably next year and the following years until these raceways get back on line.
There are meetings this week as to what the ramifications will be and what will happen in the near future.
 
CRB wrote:
3CU and WCC stock bigger and IMHO better imprinted fish. The locals up here know these fish probably are the majority of fish that return. PAFBC may stock more but the majority of these are raised out side the water shed and are much smaller when stocked, and return but not necessarily back to PA tributaries.
Click to expand...

You realize that what you are saying is that if the co-ops stock 6.5% of the fish, say 650 of 10000 total, and 1000 return, at least 501 are co-op fish.

That's at least an approx. 77% return on the co-op fish and an approx. 5% return on the PAFBC fish.

(BTW, In the past I've seen 25% or so stated as being a good return on stocked steelhead.)

Not saying the co-op fish aren't a better quality of smolt. I'm ust trying to illustrate how the numbers are against them supporting the even a narrow majority of of the run.

Kev
 
pennkev wrote
"OK. If we had only 100 fish return this year, and we have 93 return next year, are we going to notice it?

I will, those are the ones I would have caught, now I'm gonna get skunked even more!!

;-)
 
I'll also add that I'm not anti-stocking either. I love the Erie steelhead run and we all know that it wouldn't exist without a stocking program. Those fish weren't designed to live and reproduce in those shale bottom tribs. The run is a huge revenue boost for the region so more fish = more business for local restaurants, tackle shops, gas stations, etc.

I think that some people that have access to a plethora of wild trout streams in their area automatically reject the idea of stocking any fish ever. In Erie county however, that isn't a reality. Stocking is necessary.

I hope my 3CU booster button didnt come from the Corry hatchery.
 
CRB wrote:
3CU and WCC stock bigger and IMHO better imprinted fish. The locals up here know these fish probably are the majority of fish that return. PAFBC may stock more but the majority of these are raised out side the water shed and are much smaller when stocked, and return but not necessarily back to PA tributaries.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the Corry hatchery isn't in the lake erie watershed???
 
It used to be that the single largest Commission source of fish for the trib fishery was the Tionesta cultural station. I don't know if that is true any more. In any event, last I knew, Corry's output was used entirely to supply the inland waters program.

I would imagine that whatever it takes, the fish needed to maintain the fishery at whatever unnaturally rarefied level is desired will be found. The entire thing has morphed into way too much of a Chamber of Commerce issue for it to go otherwise.

I do have some empathy for Bob Hetz and all the 3CU folks though. They have worked ceaselessly for a long, long time to build the thing into what it has become. Whether I agree with or completely approve of what they have wrought is immaterial. I'm sorry to hear about it because I like Bob a lot.

But it'll be OK. My only regret is, since they built the &%$#* casino, this problem with the fish isn't going to be enough to drive the price of a room at the Red Roof at PA 97 and I-90 back down under 60 bucks...
 
PennKev wrote:
CRB wrote:
3CU and WCC stock bigger and IMHO better imprinted fish. The locals up here know these fish probably are the majority of fish that return. PAFBC may stock more but the majority of these are raised out side the water shed and are much smaller when stocked, and return but not necessarily back to PA tributaries.
Click to expand...

You realize that what you are saying is that if the co-ops stock 6.5% of the fish, say 650 of 10000 total, and 1000 return, at least 501 are co-op fish.

That's at least an approx. 77% return on the co-op fish and an approx. 5% return on the PAFBC fish.

(BTW, In the past I've seen 25% or so stated as being a good return on stocked steelhead.)

Not saying the co-op fish aren't a better quality of smolt. I'm ust trying to illustrate how the numbers are against them supporting the even a narrow majority of of the run.

Kev
Click to expand...

"That's at least an approx. 77% return on the co-op fish and an approx. 5% return on the PAFBC fish. "
That is probably true. and yes they are a bigger and better quality smolt. They are given to the clubs as eggs, are given more food and are afforded homes in the watersheds that receive stockings. There is a report from Ohio State that places a huge amount of fish swimming in the lake run up any Trib with flow. I doubt these are the stray fish referenced in the report.
I can forward you this report if you wish.
 
RLeeP wrote:
It used to be that the single largest Commission source of fish for the trib fishery was the Tionesta cultural station. I don't know if that is true any more. In any event, last I knew, Corry's output was used entirely to supply the inland waters program.

I would imagine that whatever it takes, the fish needed to maintain the fishery at whatever unnaturally rarefied level is desired will be found. The entire thing has morphed into way too much of a Chamber of Commerce issue for it to go otherwise.

I do have some empathy for Bob Hetz and all the 3CU folks though. They have worked ceaselessly for a long, long time to build the thing into what it has become. Whether I agree with or completely approve of what they have wrought is immaterial. I'm sorry to hear about it because I like Bob a lot.

But it'll be OK. My only regret is, since they built the &%$#* casino, this problem with the fish isn't going to be enough to drive the price of a room at the Red Roof at PA 97 and I-90 back down under 60 bucks...
Click to expand...

Yes, and still are but water temps and conditions hamper the size of these fish from this source. The hatchery produces a huge number but also much smaller. They only are afforded 1-2 months in the tribs to imprint.
Question 1-2 months in the watershed to imprint or 7-8 months that are afford by these clubs?
 
CRB wrote:
PennKev wrote:

That's at least an approx. 77% return on the co-op fish and an approx. 5% return on the PAFBC fish.


Kev
Click to expand...

That is probably true. and yes they are a bigger and better quality smolt. They are given to the clubs as eggs, are given more food and are afforded homes in the watersheds that receive stockings. There is a report from Ohio State that places a huge amount of fish swimming in the lake run up any Trib with flow. I doubt these are the stray fish referenced in the report.
I can forward you this report if you wish.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that the co-op fish make up that large a portion of the run. Again, I'm not saying that co-op raised fish don't get better returns, but their return rate would need to be astronomical in comparison to the PAFBC smolts in order for them to make up a majority of the annual run.

Not only that but the better then run (more fish actually returning), the higher the percent of return needed from the co-op fish to maintain a majority. I originally used 1000 out of 10000 as an example. If you suppose 2000 out of 10000 total combined co-op and PAFBC stocked fish return, the co-op fish would need an even bigger return rate to make up the majority of the run. In this new example, which is a 20% total return rate, the co-op fish would not be able to achieve the majority as there are just not enough of them.


Kev
 
Turkey, I honestly don't know the answer to your question, but since the 50's when whirling disease was first found in PA hatcheries they've been a problem. When you go to a hatchery look at the number of fish there, the numbers seem to me absurd.
It does depend on the size of the hatchery and the water receiving the pollution from the hatchery.
 
They only are afforded 1-2 months in the tribs to imprint.
Click to expand...

I'm not really up on the science of fish development. But I find it highly likely that thinking of it in terms of "how much" time they have to imprint is wrong. There is likely a fairly specific stage of development at which this takes place, and thus, a fairly short but specific period of time they need to be in the trib.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top