Experimental Fingerling Stocking

klingy

klingy

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
583
I was reading the quarterly report (opens as PDF) of the Fish and Boat Commission's strategic plan. On page 2, they mention a plan to stock fingerlings on 5 streams in the state. The two streams that stuck out to me were Donegal and Green Spring since I fish both. I've often thought that Green Spring could be a better fishery if natural reproduction could get going at a sustainable rate (which I'm guessing won't/hasn't happened due to the state of the stream), but a fingerling program might be the next best thing. Anyone know any more about this plan?
 
I certainly don't know anything more than what's in the press release. Generally speaking, I'm a staunch advocate of fingerling trout stocking. The truth is, fingerling programs have been a very mixed bag but there are plenty of success stories, including some where the fingerling fishery transitioned into a viable wild population (eg Little J or lower Letort). Other fingerling programs, like the brookie fingerlings in Big Spring a few years ago, fall flat.
Nevertheless, I think experimenting with trout fingerlings is always worth a try. Kudos to the PFBC for going this route.
I can think of a few more waters around here that would be worth adding to the list.
 
Klingy I will send you a PM when I get home
Justin
 
Fishidiot wrote:
I certainly don't know anything more than what's in the press release. Generally speaking, I'm a staunch advocate of fingerling trout stocking. The truth is, fingerling programs have been a very mixed bag but there are plenty of success stories, including some where the fingerling fishery transitioned into a viable wild population (eg Little J or lower Letort). Other fingerling programs, like the brookie fingerlings in Big Spring a few years ago, fall flat.
Nevertheless, I think experimenting with trout fingerlings is always worth a try. Kudos to the PFBC for going this route.
I can think of a few more waters around here that would be worth adding to the list.

I don't think the wild trout population on the Little J or lower Letort can be attributed to fingerling stocking.

People caught lots of big browns in the Little J back when there was no stocking. The wild browns were there all along.

In the Letort, once the pollution issue was fixed, that allowed the pops to expand. No need for fingerlings.

Fingerlings might work in Green Spring, though. The spawning is probably limited by mud there, but fingerlings may find enough food and habitat to grow fat and sassy. I hope it works.
 
I have only fished one of those streams and know it has a decent population of wild browns in it already. Most stockings occur at bridges by a local sportsman club and the FFO section. IMO it is fine just the way it is and doesn't need added fish from any stocking let along fingerlings.


PennKev may way in a bit more on this stream.
 
ryguyfi wrote:
I have only fished one of those streams and know it has a decent population of wild browns in it already. Most stockings occur at bridges by a local sportsman club and the FFO section. IMO it is fine just the way it is and doesn't need added fish from any stocking let along fingerlings.


PennKev may way in a bit more on this stream.

If you mean Little Sandy, I don't think it is worth while in regard to bolstering a wild population. There are plenty of wild fish in the stream wherever there is good habitat. The problem is the habitat in the popular C&R section sucks except for a few key areas.

I see no reason for fingerling stockings outside of the C&R area on LSC. But it doesn't seem like this is what is proposed. FWIW, I don't see any reason for stocking on that creek.


Also is the "Codwell" creek in Warren Cty. actua;ly Caldwell Creek?

Kev
 
troutbert,

Agree LJR wild trout were there all the time. And I agree if you have a pre-existing population, and conditions improve, the wild trout will take off on their own.

However, LJR fish are of a strain that is noticably similar to the modern PFBC fish. I mean, all of PA's wild browns, at one point, came from stocked fish, but many of them were eons ago. PA's stocked strain has changed since then and is noticably different than many of our wild trout populations. Not so with LJR. It does make me wonder if perhaps the modern fingerling program at least contributed a fair amount of DNA to today's LJR wild trout population.

I certainly don't know. Just an interesting topic for thought. Any older LJR guys around notice if the genetics have changed since the fingerling program?
 
I love the idea of fingerling stocking in "certain" streams. The Tulpehocken (DHALO) was out of this world when they used to stock fingerlings - then they stopped. nice...:(

I think it is a great cost savings this day and age when the agency is up against the financial wall - I hope they get the plan right b/c I think it can be a win-win..
 
What would be the negatives of stocking fingerlings in a creek such as the Donegal?

One negative that I can think of is that the fingerlings wouldn't survive due to agricultural pollution. Is this a valid concern?
I'm not at all sure if the catch and release section
of the Donegal is very healthy. When I fished that section about a week ago I noticed that when I got home, I smelled like the slurry the farmers spray all over northwestern Lancaster County. It was
a pretty potent smell. Argh!! If fingerlings are very sensitive to pollution, I think stocking the Donegal with fingerlings would be like urinating up a rope.
 
The fingerlings utilized in this study will be "advanced fingerlings," meaning that they will be stocked in fall at lengths in the vicinity of 7".

Stream-stripper, strictly from a cost standpoint the Tulpehocken program was no longer a cost savings when the survival rate of the fingerlings from the time of the fall stocking to the following late spring dropped below 25%. Below 25% more than four fall fingerlings had to be stocked to produce one adult trout by the following late May or June. Those four plus fingerlings exceeded the price of a standard spring stocked adult trout.
 
What I don't understand is why not stocked advanced fingerlings in the spring in the tully. They are still of harvest size, you might get your 4 adults by fall/winter and the fingerling crowd will still be happy.
How do the adults holdover?
I think it would be a better sm bass fishery myself.
 
IMO the fingerling stocking program on Donegal would be a waste. I would rather see the fish not stocked at all and the entire creek taken off the special regs list. With the money saved from not stocking fish, coupled with donegal tu monies.....do a massive habitat restoration. It needs it.
 
Because of their growth rates, advanced fingerlings stocked in spring would be adult trout. That's what is being stocked now, so you have your wish.
 
Mike,
I'm curious about the costs incurred in raising trout these days. I seem to recall it used to be about $2.40 to raise a trout to "catchable" size(?). What is it nowadays for an adult trout? I'm also curious about the individual costs of advanced fingerlings vs smaller age fingerlings. Obviously, such information is critical to the PFBC's cost/benefits analysis with regards to trout stocking.
Thanks in advance.
 
Actually my wish was that it would no longer be stocked with trout but smallmouth bass. The wish of many of its anglers is that it would be fingerling stocked.

Guess no one wins ;-)

There is a big difference in sport fishing between an adult trout grown in the stream from a fingerling and an adult stocked raceway trout.
 
Fishidiot wrote:
Mike,
I'm curious about the costs incurred in raising trout these days. I seem to recall it used to be about $2.40 to raise a trout to "catchable" size(?). What is it nowadays for an adult trout? I'm also curious about the individual costs of advanced fingerlings vs smaller age fingerlings. Obviously, such information is critical to the PFBC's cost/benefits analysis with regards to trout stocking.
Thanks in advance.


To help Mike out, I cut and paste several posts he wrote here on the subject of stocking costs & fingerling costs and survival rates:

Mike wrote:
I frequently see mentioned on this Board the supposed savings that would be realized by stocking fingerling trout instead of adults. In a nutshell, the cost of one 11 inch adult trout raised and delivered to the stream is the same as the cost of four fingerlings. From a cost containment standpoint, to break even, you need one of each four fingerlings released (25% survival) to make it to the equivalent adult trout size if you are going to provide the same number of fish to be caught by anglers. Such fingerling trout survival rates in Pa are rare!!!. For the cost of fingerlings to be cheaper than adult stocking, the survival has to be even greater.




Based on data in the recently released PFBC report on production and stocking costs of fingerling and adult trout, in order to break even (be cost comparable) 25% of the 3.5 inch fingerlings or 34% of the 5 inch fingerlings stocked would need to survive to 11 inches in order to match the cost of an adult trout delivered to the stream or lake. An even higher % of larger "fingerlings," such as the 7 in. fish sometimes stocked in fall, would need to survive in order to break even with the adult trout stocking program. Fingerling survival rates of this magnitude, in my experience, have rarely been seen in Pa.




Fish & Boat Commission Releases Trout Cost Study
Approves Several Boating Facility Grants
Champion, PA — Results from a Fish & Boat Commission (PFBC) stocked trout cost study show that the agency spends approximately $2.17 to produce an average adult trout, an amount less than that charged by commercial trout hatcheries. Overall, the Commission spends approximately $12.4 million per year to provide more than 6 million of the popular game fish, including fingerlings and adults.
“This is the first time we’ve undertaken a comprehensive examination of all the costs associated with our trout program,” said Executive Director Doug Austen, Ph.D. “This includes examining the expenditures from all bureaus as they relate to the trout program, such as engineering, law enforcement and fisheries management, and factoring in indirect costs like accounting and human resources.”
Staff made their presentation to commissioners during a Fisheries Committee meeting at the agency’s quarterly meeting, held April 20-21 at the Seven Springs Mountain Resort.
Dr. Austen said that the trout program production costs are competitive with retail prices at commercial hatcheries. The average price of similar sized adult trout from three Pennsylvania commercial trout farms was $2.57, compared to the PFBC cost of $2.17. The PFBC’s overall cost to produce, stock and manage an average adult trout is $2.73. Austen noted that this price includes delivery costs and other management costs the PFBC included in its analysis, such as habitat improvement efforts, environmental permit reviews and creel surveys.
Each season the Commission raises about 3.5 million 11-inch adult trout for stocking, 2 million to 4 million fingerlings for the put-grow-take fishery, and 1.2 million fingerlings for cooperative nurseries. It also raises about 20,000 trophy trout consisting of 2-3-year-old brood stock and 9,000 trophy golden rainbow trout. About $9.3 million (77 percent) of the total costs are spent on the adult trout portion of the program.
 
unforgiven wrote:
What would be the negatives of stocking fingerlings in a creek such as the Donegal?

One negative that I can think of is that the fingerlings wouldn't survive due to agricultural pollution. Is this a valid concern?
I'm not at all sure if the catch and release section
of the Donegal is very healthy. When I fished that section about a week ago I noticed that when I got home, I smelled like the slurry the farmers spray all over northwestern Lancaster County. It was
a pretty potent smell. Argh!! If fingerlings are very sensitive to pollution, I think stocking the Donegal with fingerlings would be like urinating up a rope.

I don't see any negatives. If it works, good. If it doesn't work, oh well, there's no harm done.

It's a limestone stream so fingerling trout may be able to survive there year around, even if reproduction is extremely limited because of mud and/or high nitrogen concentrations in the water.

Can't hurt. And might help.
 
personally i think the PFBC needs to revamp the whole stocking..program....i see absolutely no point in trying to establish..fingerling trout in marginal water. And i also at the same time see no point in stocking adult trout in water that has the habitat...the year round water temps ect..to support wild trout....As we speak there are Many MANY! streams in south central, north central, north eastern , south western, north western part of the state that COULD! have a self sustaining trout population..(sorry guy's in the south east, although there are some streams..most are just to warm or lacking habitat ,due to human development. I think the PFBC really needs to lean more to establishing a self sustaining trout population in streams that could be self sustaining..Habitat restoration, fingerling stocking ect...Improving the overall long range of trout fishing in PA, and the long range cost effectivness of such a program....To continue to stock hatchery raised adult trout without a long range program. For a self sustaining population..Is not going to get us anywhere. Such a program would also due away with the opening day mobs, and hatchery truck followers...promoting rather a year long valuable self sustaining resource..
 
Back
Top