Those brook trout "fry" stockings 1891 to 1902

[Mike]

The statewide stockings of Brook Trout in the late 1800's, etc have been mentioned here in the past, but no numbers have been presented. A total of 30,825,303 fry were reported to have been shipped in milk cans, 1000-1500 fry per can, from the western ( Corry ) and eastern (Allentown) hatcheries in the years cited above.Distribution was very widespread via rail to the voluntary stocking applicants, most of whom appeared to be from fish and game protective associations. Those individuals then met the trains and stocked via horse and wagon. Using 1902 as an example, about 55 counties received fish during that spring. Springs/spring runs were sought in the east for stocking while a lack or absence of such stocking points was considered to be problematic in the west where more typical streams were directly stocked.

 

[Eccles]

What's the source for that info Mike?

 

[pete41]

who counted out 30,825,303 fry?

 

[The_Sasquatch]

Good question, Pete, and w/out computers or even calculators. I didn't know abacuses could go that high!

 

[salmonoid]

Numbers are recorded in the annual reports sent to the legislature. You can find scanned copies online. Google "Report of the State Commissioners of Fisheries for the year" and Pennsylvania and you will find the numbers.

Pennsylvania's first hatchery was at Donegal Springs in 1873. They used all their funds for the fish commission ($10,000) and then some to build it and then abandoned it just a few years into hatching fish there.

The 1903 report has a summary article.
https://books.google.com/books?id=w0FPAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA109&ots=XSY0NnUOjW&dq=donegal%20springs%20hatchery%20trout&pg=PA108#v=onepage&q=donegal%20springs%20hatchery%20trout&f=false

 

[RCFetter]

Allentown and Corey hatcheries. That's one of our mods holding the net.

 

[salmo]

How did the brook trout fry survive in the milk cans? Between high temps and consumption of oxygen how long could the fry survive? When I get a bucket of minnows for flounder fishing I find it nearly impossible to keep them alive.

 

[MKern]

I was wondering the same thing.?.?

 

[FarmerDave]

pete41 wrote:
who counted out 30,825,303 fry?

LOL! That was exactly my thought.

Picture one guy with one of those little push button counters, sitting and counting fish at the rate of 1 per second, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 4 years, 1 month, 6 days, 2 hours, 27 minutes, and 39 seconds, give or take.

That's allowing for a leap year, but not holidays, vacation, or sick leave.

 

[JackM]

The upshot is that maybe our beloved "native" brookies aren't much different in principle from the stocked browns and rainbows that managed to establish reproducing "wild" cultures.

 

[FarmerDave]

salmo wrote:
How did the brook trout fry survive in the milk cans? Between high temps and consumption of oxygen how long could the fry survive?

Back then, the milk that was use in those cans was organic.

When I get a bucket of minnows for flounder fishing I find it nearly impossible to keep them alive.

Next time try putting ice in the water, made without chlorinated water of course.

 

[pete41]

also explains why there are only gemmies in Pa.--stunted growth in the milk cans..

 

[geebee]

salmo wrote:
How did the brook trout fry survive in the milk cans? Between high temps and consumption of oxygen how long could the fry survive? When I get a bucket of minnows for flounder fishing I find it nearly impossible to keep them alive.

the milk cans were packed in ice.

John Gierach wrote about it out west.

 

[Maurice]

I would venture a guess that they don;t "Count them" so much as they use volume displacement but determining how much water is displaced by 100 or 500 or 1000 fry and then dump the troots into the can until the water reaches the calculated level. Same way they count eggs.

 

[pete41]

yeah,we guessed that Maurice but --,---,303 was funny.

 

[troutbert]

Does this have any significance regarding today's brook trout populations?

I doubt it.

The survival rate for hatchery raised stocked fry in the streams must have been extremely low.

It's mostly interesting in terms of understanding even more about the sad and silly history of hatchery madness and delusions, of wasted and misplaced efforts.

 

[franklin]

troutbert wrote:
Does this have any significance regarding today's brook trout populations?

I doubt it.

The survival rate for hatchery raised stocked fry in the streams must have been extremely low.

It's mostly interesting in terms of understanding even more about the sad and silly history of hatchery madness and delusions, of wasted and misplaced efforts.

I'd guess a lot of our current mountain brookies originated from those efforts. Yes survival rates were likely very low as many of those streams were in bad shape due to the heavy logging in the late 1800s. Others were still being decimated by logging. But many of those streams had small dams which restricted upstream migration from the lower watersheds.

I remember my grandfather telling me of some of those early stocking efforts. They often dumped the fish in streams accessible only to the railroad. They would stop the train at each bridge they came to and pour part or all of a can into the stream.

 

[pcray1231]

The survival rate for hatchery raised stocked fry in the streams must have been extremely low.

Don't be so sure. Genetically speaking, early hatcheries used fish that were much closer to "wild" fish than the hatchery stock today.

In fact, one of the reasons they stocked so many fingerlings is that they struggled mightily with survival rates in the hatcheries when trying to grow them to adulthood. They'd run themselves into raceway walls. They'd scatter from people who came to feed them, and not eat. This is all true. Not well documented in PA but it is in the Midwest. This was genetic behavior, not learned. It happened to fish born in the hatchery.

Over time, "un-natural" selection took place, and the few that survived to breeder status were the ones that did better in a hatchery setting. So the hatchery strains progressively differentiated from the wild strains. The hatchery ones, of course, do better in hatcheries but not as well in actual streams.

 

[Chaz]

franklin wrote:

troutbert wrote:
Does this have any significance regarding today's brook trout populations?

I doubt it.

The survival rate for hatchery raised stocked fry in the streams must have been extremely low.

It's mostly interesting in terms of understanding even more about the sad and silly history of hatchery madness and delusions, of wasted and misplaced efforts.

I'd guess a lot of our current mountain brookies originated from those efforts. Yes survival rates were likely very low as many of those streams were in bad shape due to the heavy logging in the late 1800s. Others were still being decimated by logging. But many of those streams had small dams which restricted upstream migration from the lower watersheds.

I remember my grandfather telling me of some of those early stocking efforts. They often dumped the fish in streams accessible only to the railroad. They would stop the train at each bridge they came to and pour part or all of a can into the stream.

Hatcheries were in their infancy back then, and the survival rate in the hatchery for brook trout was very low, that's probably why they tried stocking fry.
There are methods to find out though, using dna it can be determined what the origin of our brook trout in our mountain streams is. I'd bet that because we see so much variation in the appearance of gemmies there are plenty of heritage strains.
I'm with Trout Bert on this one.

 

[FarmerDave]

troutbert wrote:
Does this have any significance regarding today's brook trout populations?

I doubt it.

The survival rate for hatchery raised stocked fry in the streams must have been extremely low.

Did you check the date? It took a long time to develop the inferior brook trout strain that is stocked today.

But even if many did survive, I doubt it would have made much of a genetic difference as long as there was still some of the old strains still there. Nature sorts out what genetics works best.