Rainbow trout: answer to poor natural reproduction in Pa.

M

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
5,434
As I posted in another thread, PFBC rainbows are fall spawners. I have also confirmed that PFBC golden rainbows are fall spawners as well. What I should have said, however, is that the vast majority are fall spawners; a very low percentage of the females mature through the winter. Likewise, some males mature through the winter or remain ripe throughout late fall and winter; thus, the spawning freshly stocked golden rainbows (1 male, 1 female) in Ontelaunee Creek in early March and the attendance by three much smaller 1.5-2 yr. old male rainbows. Not all of the fish mature at the same time (fall), but the vast majority do so. In nature there can be adaptive advantages to protracted spawning periods for a given species, but the majority usually spawn when on average historical conditions have been best. Also, it is possible that the natural spring spawning behavior has not been completely selected out of the hatchery population.

With a few exceptions, most successful rainbow trout populations in Pa are in limestone streams, where water temps are relatively constant. Note that I said populations, which does not mean the occasional fish. Some are fall spawning populations; most are spring spawning populations. I am aware of one or two freestone populations in NW Pa. Despite the wide stocking of rainbows across the state, few populations have developed. Why? 1. Water temperatures less than 42 degrees F negatively affect the survival of deposited rainbow eggs. So, in the vast majority of Pa streams, winter water temps would kill otherwise viable eggs. 2. Water temps higher than 56 deg F negatively affect the development of eggs in the female RT. Most Pa streams exceed 56 deg F in summer. It would not surprise me if these temperature minimums and maximums vary slightly from strain to strain, but the principle remains the same. In a real life example, both 1. and 2. would explain why, despite holdover of some RT in Tulpehocken Creek's DH area, little or no successful reproduction occurs. The very limited reproduction that is successful is probably so because there are rainbows residing in Plum and Cacoosing Creeks, which are limestone tribs.

And just to clarify something, two year old rainbows carry eggs and could be spawned in Pa.'s hatcheries, but three year olds have more and larger eggs. Brood stock is primarily comprised of three year olds in Pa hatcheries. As trout age percent egg viability declines so there is no real advantage to keeping even larger and older fish in the hatcheries as brood. One can use more younger fish (3 yr olds) to get an equal number of eggs that are more viable than those produced by older fish. And older, larger fish are more expensive to raise.
 
Now that makes sense to me...thanks for expanding on this Mike.
 
Mike what is the process of selecting the fish from which to obtain eggs and milt? Is it just random among the healthy fish? Are they selected to "become breeders" from earlier ages or only at the point they have matured sexually? You said the lighting trickery is used to cause the spawning to be moved up earlier than Fall. At what point in the brood stock's maturity is the training used, just in the season they are prepared to spawn or are they raised from an earlier age using the light variances?
 
Jack,
I was only stationed at a hatchery for a few years and when the fish culture work was going on I was busy in the field doing what field biologists do. So, my response below is based on conversations, observations, and impressions, so I may be missing some fine points to the response. The brood fish are "held back" from stocking based on body shape, growth rate, color, and probably disease resistance. I don't believe the decision is made in early life, although it may be when culturists are in the process of developing a new strain or expanding a new strain's numbers. To my knowledge, the light house trick is used in the year that the culturists want to use those particular adults to spawn.
 
That is a helpful answer. I thought it might suggest that in every brood of fry, those that make it to be "breeders" are being culled from only a subset of characteristics that were "born" of that brood.
 
I guess the Upper Delaware fishery throws a wrench in some of this logic. Obviously an exception and maybe due to the strain of RT in the Upper D system.
 
LehighRegular wrote:
I guess the Upper Delaware fishery throws a wrench in some of this logic. Obviously an exception and maybe due to the strain of RT in the Upper D system.

I don't think it throws a wrench into what Mike is descrbing, because, as you stated, they are very likely a different strain of rainbow trout.

So, they are really two different topics. The characteristics of Strain A and the characteristics of Strain B.

Rainbows in their natural state were and are spring spawners. The PFBC has been selectively bred for fall spawning.

The rainbow strain in the Delaware was not. They retain the spring spawning characteristics. I believe that is also true of the Falling Spring rainbows, but maybe someone can help me out.

How about the western PA rainbows, does anyone know when they spawn?
 
Wild rainbow trout in the upper tully are spring spawners.
 
That was one interesting and informative little piece. Thanks Mike.
Two more a day for the next year should do it. :)
 
I have an interesting story about a wild rainbow stream in NE PA, where I grew up. This stream has a wild rainbow population, which was verified by a FBC shocking. Anyway, my neighbors had relative that lived along the stream. I got to know him and his family fairly well. He ran a trout hatchery that raised RT on a well-known stream. Any hatchery produces an overabundance of eggs and thus fry which turn into fingerlings. Every year he stocked RT fingerlings in a small trib to the well-known stream. This was a long time ago, maybe 40 years or so, and up until today, wild RT still inhabit the stream. I guess he gave them enough help to allow them to establish a population. I’m sure the FBC doesn’t know anything about this, just don’t tell them….lol.
 
afishinado wrote:
I have an interesting story about a wild rainbow stream in NE PA, where I grew up. This stream has a wild rainbow population, which was verified by a FBC shocking. Anyway, my neighbors had relative that lived along the stream. I got to know him and his family fairly well. He ran a trout hatchery that raised RT on a well-known stream. Any hatchery produces an overabundance of eggs and thus fry which turn into fingerlings. Every year he stocked RT fingerlings in a small trib to the well-known stream. This was a long time ago, maybe 40 years or so, and up until today, wild RT still inhabit the stream. I guess he gave them enough help to allow them to establish a population. I’m sure the FBC doesn’t know anything about this, just don’t tell them….lol.


Yer crazy Tom, wild trout can't be propogated by stocking....it just ain't so.

"scarcasm alert"
 
A well known private fishing club has started stocking rainbows and they immediately established reproducing populations, in streams that have had been stocked with PFBC hatchery rainbows for a long time.

Why? It's a different strain of rainbow trout.

BTW, I think that should be outlawed. Only stocking of non-viable rainbows should be allowed. If rainbow trout populations became widely established in PA it would threaten to create a situation similar to the Smoky Mountains, where the rainbows have displaced the brook trout.

Back around the 1980s, Marty Marcinko, then head of the trout program for the PFBC, told me that the PFBC wished to avoid that scenario, which is why they continued to stock this strain of rainbow trout. They are raising those rainbows for put-and-take fishing, NOT to establish populations.

I think Marty was correct that this is the right decision. They could "refresh" the line of hatchery rainbows with a more wild strain type of rainbow, which would establish populations all over the place, but that would threaten the brook trout populations.

So, IMHO they are doing the right thing in maintaining the current hatchery strain.
 
afishinado wrote:
I have an interesting story about a wild rainbow stream in NE PA, where I grew up. This stream has a wild rainbow population, which was verified by a FBC shocking. Anyway, my neighbors had relative that lived along the stream. I got to know him and his family fairly well. He ran a trout hatchery that raised RT on a well-known stream. Any hatchery produces an overabundance of eggs and thus fry which turn into fingerlings. Every year he stocked RT fingerlings in a small trib to the well-known stream. This was a long time ago, maybe 40 years or so, and up until today, wild RT still inhabit the stream. I guess he gave them enough help to allow them to establish a population. I’m sure the FBC doesn’t know anything about this, just don’t tell them….lol.

The PFBC probably knows. They have it on the Class A list.

The question that comes to mind is why did these rainbows from this private hatchery (not a coop hatchery) succeed in establishing a population in small forested freestone stream, when rainbows from the PFBC hatcheries have been stocked by the millions for a long time and yet there are very few wild rainbow populations established. The answer is pretty simple: Different strains of rainbow trout.

As I stated before, I agree with the PFBC's policy of not stocking rainbow trout that will establish populations. And disagree with guys like this who establish rainbow populations that compete with native brookies.
 
Troutbert wrote:
The PFBC probably knows. They have it on the Class A list.

The question that comes to mind is why did these rainbows from this private hatchery (not a coop hatchery) succeed in establishing a population in small forested freestone stream, when rainbows from the PFBC hatcheries have been stocked by the millions for a long time and yet there are very few wild rainbow populations established. The answer is pretty simple: Different strains of rainbow trout.

As I stated before, I agree with the PFBC's policy of not stocking rainbow trout that will establish populations. And disagree with guys like this who establish rainbow populations that compete with native brookies.


I definitely agree with all of the above.

In this particular case, the FBC knows they're there since they surveyed the stream at some point to confirm the presence of wild RT, the how and why they're there is probably not known to them. Like I said, this happened many years ago. I believe their presence proves your point that the strain of RT stocked by the FBC is not likely to spawn successfully, but a different strain from another source has a much better chance of survival.

I think the FBC should have more stringent rules restricting any private individual or organization from stocking trout, or any other species of fish for that matter. Actually, I am not really aware of their policies on the issue as it stands right now. Can anyone enlighten me?
 
The rainbows in the Delaware, according to those that know, were on a train to a hatchery in NY when the train wrecked. The tank cars were opened and the rainbows on board were released into the Delaware. This happened in the 1890's according to the same sources, so they can't possibly be related to anything PFBC has now unless they got the same stock, probably from California and used they as brood fish. The Delaware fish spawn in the spring and are probably doing so now. These fish were from the Sacremento basin and were probably the spawn of wild bows.
As an aside Salmon were also stocked in the Delaware at around that time, but never established a population, though many fish returned, I know of a guy whose father and grandfather caught the returning fish.
 
Playing devils advicate....

If the FBC is stocking a certain stream then that probably means there is no sustaining population of brook trout present. Then why wouldn't the FBC want to establish a sustainable population of wild fish in the stream, either bt or rt? Would seem to me that if there is a sustainable wild population then the FBC would have to stock less fish or move additional stockies to other ATW streams.

Or the question should be, since the FBC stocks brookies as well, how come they are not re-establishing populations in their historic range?
 
Stevie-B wrote:
Playing devils advicate....

Or the question should be, since the FBC stocks brookies as well, how come they are not re-establishing populations in their historic range?

I think they are where they can.

Brook trout are often stocked in streams that are quite acidic and the PH can vary greatly.

Brook trout can survive in fairly low PH, but the eggs can't. In other words ... I don't know the exact numbers, but the minimum ph requirement for brook trout survival is a fair amount lower that it is for maintaining brook trout reproduction.
 
StevieB - Because trout, especially rainbows it seems, move. You are not only establishing a population in that stretch, but also other stretches of that stream and perhaps other connected streams.

Farmer is right about the pH thing. Brook trout can survive in more acidic waters than browns. Their eggs need slightly more basic water than the fish do, but even the eggs, I believe, can withstand more acidic water than brown trout eggs.

As a result, browns may have taken over the majority of the larger wild trout streams, but brookies found a refuge in the more acidic headwaters.

I'm not 100% sure of this, but my understanding is that rainbows are capable of thriving in similar pH's as brookies, and therefore pose a very real threat to that refuge that brookies have found. If allowed to establish on a large scale, rainbows could displace the brookies.
 
Rainbows cannot withstand the same acid levels as brookies.
Actually they're the least tolerant of the big three.
 
Back
Top