Poll

[RAW]

If all of our rivers, streams and lakes lost their natural-born, wild trout, but the DWR was able to plant larger hatchery reared trout that were easy to catch and maintained enough planters to make fishing fast and the trout bigger would you enjoy it more than catching smaller wild trout?

[LIV2FSH]

RAW,
I don't think I would enjoy it more! I like catching whatever fish will eat my fly!
Tight Lines, Bruce.

[Larry S.]

No. Half the fun is not knowing what you may bring up to fly.

[Lowcountry]

As Gary LaFontaine said,"Hatchery fish is not real fish.", in his video with Dick Sharon; I really enjoy catching small cutthroat trouts out of small creeks. I think if we spend our resources in taking care of what we have than to spend it on replacing what is lost, we will be better off in the long run.

Steve

[Wyoming 2]

NO!...but I would rather catch large wild trout (don't necessarily have to be natives).

Just a thought (off the topic)...you bring up a scary fishing point--with the large environmental push in recent years and the endangered species act, we will be seeing more and more native fish (Colorado River Cutthroat, Bonneville Cutthroat, Bear Lake Cutthroat etc) being stocked in Utah. The threat is now present that if these native fishes are not maintained and if abundant populations do not exist, they could be listed as endangered. Scary because of the potential impact that would have on Utah fisheries...many Utah streams and lakes could possibly be poisoned to help sustain these trout populations and fishermen not allowed to enjoy them!

I know, it sounds far fetched, but already groups of environmental lawyers in Colorado have lawsuits on the board dealing with fish they deem endangered or threatened.

[Ed Kent]

Hell no!!!

[Fred]

No

[Mr. Loopy]

No

[DrewTrout]

There is more to this sport than just catching any fish. There is a beauty and romanticism in catching a fish that was here before any of us. A hope that after we are gone, that fish will still be there. All is right when you catch a fish that was made to live in that exact spot on that exact stream.

[BRY]

No, but I would enjoy it alot more than catching no fish.

[Wes Johnson]

RAW, etal,

DWR does have a specific stocking plan that does not allow them to stock fish in areas where natural reproduction takes place.

However, if a major population was wiped out, i.e. Logan Dam fiasco, then DWR will put hatchery fish back into the system. They will aim at using native species and try to get them reestablished in those areas that have been identified for native species reintroduction.

If the lower Weber in the Riverdale area was decimated by a major pollution occurance, then they would probably go with hatchery rainbows.

The DWR stocking plan is very specific about when and where hatchery fish can be disposed. Putting old brood stock into our native waters is not included in the plan. Normally old brood stock are those large 'hens' that are no longer capable of producing eggs. These are planted where they can be caught by the general public. Most of these fish have a life expectancy of only a few days.

[Aron]

No
The wild fish are so much prettier,feistier,and more of a challenge.But I would catch planters,as opposed to not catching any at all.

[Ouzel]

But it begs another question. How many rivers, streams etc. currently have "real" natives in them now? We may be forgetting how long we have been overruling mother nature. While rainbows, cutthroat, etc. are native to the north american continent german brown trout were import from Scotland in the early 1880's. I would wager that "genetically" current "native" species are different from the real "native native" species had we had been smarter many many years ago (spilled milk).
As long as we are wishing I feel there should be two kinds of water we try to maintain; one for the hoard of people who like to fill coolers and others left in their natural state which will dictate the number and size of the fish.
Overall I think we should leave mother nature alone and try to live within the natural boundries of this planet. We can all observe from the efforts of mankind for the last few decades that we are trying hard to put things back to the way we found them and reduce the overall human inpact on this planet.
Everyone hears all the time about "Saving The Planet", when the truth is that we are in fact trying to save mankind. If we totally screw up and become extinct the planet will recover in time and a different species will become top dog and maybe they will be smarter than us.
I will now step down from the soap box and open the cooler.

[DrewTrout]

Ouzel got me thinking.

I know this is a deviation of sorts from the subject. But...

The mountain whitefish is a wild, native gamefish. It is found in its native range in its native drainages. We are sitting here saying we want wild and native fish but we complain about the population of these wild, native gamefish growing.

Anyway, sorry RAW for the deviation. If anyone would like to discuss this further, start another thread.

[Wes Johnson]

Ouzel, etal.,

How many miles of streams/rivers have native trout in them is covered in the "Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout." It notes that Colorado has a total of 324.6 miles of streams and 15 lakes with CRCT. Wyoming has 892.8 miles of streams and only 3 lakes. Utah has 537 miles of streams, but it denotes that there are no lakes with CRCT. This is a bit misleading since Sheep Creek Reservoir, Duck Fork, and a few other lakes are managed as CRCT fisheries. Eventually Lake Canyon Lake will be a broodstock population for CRCT.

I do not have the total milage for Bonneville cutthroats but here are some interesting facts. Chalk Creek 105 miles (including tribs), over 25 miles of BCT only streams exist in the Deep Creeks, most of the cutts in the Blacksmith are Bonne's, the tributaries of Parleys have mainly BCT in them. Those lakes that come to mind that have BCT in them include Woodruff, Red Butte, Little Dell, Bear Lake (yes - Bear Lake cutts are Bonnevilles), Lost Creek, and many others.

Even the greatest fighting native fish in Utah can be found in these waters, the Mountain whitefish.

[Wyoming 2]

Also, according to some of the cutthroat "authorities" (Behnke, Hepworth, Berg, Ottenbacher etc.), many remnant native populations have existed within Utah and Wyoming without being affected by non-native introductions. It is from these remnant populations--found in small isolated mountain streams--that brood stocking programs have been initiated.

And, by the way Wes, are you crazy (no offense please...)...I am yet to catch a whitefish that fought harder than the Utah chub! Seriously, though, I would take native cutts over whitefish anyday!

[RAW]

Thanks for the responses. It is interesting to see how people think and feel about things. I agree that wild, native species are what I would prefer. My second preference would be for trout that can naturally reproduce in marginal waters where our native cutts cannot live now, such as browns that reproduce in the wild. I consider these to be wild also. I also believe that management strategies should be directed to these efforts. Now I have said this Wes is probably wondering where my TU fees are?

[mcgx2]

Wild Trout, No Question.

[Juke]

Wes presents some excellent data on the number of miles of stream or lakes that hese cutthroat sub-species live in. But one must also remember, that these populations that he mentioned are also broken down into their genetic purity. They are commonly broken down into A,B,C grades with A being the most genetically"pure." These A grade fish only occupy a small percentage of the total miles reported for a given state.

The lower the grade the more times in a fishes family tree has it spawned outside of its sub-species.

Factors influencing the grade are coloration, spotting pattern, # of teeth, #gill rakers, # of fin rays, and now more than ever DNA analysis.

Rainbows and Snake River Cutthroats have been widely stocked all over the west, and are generally considered the main culprit in the dilution of "pure" gene pools of cutthroat sub-species.

[Wes Johnson]

Good comments from Juke and RAW. It should be noted that DWR's new stocking policy, to be implemented over a number of years, is to stock only native trout and triploid rainbows.

The genetics of these populations are weird. The BCT's in Woodruff and Wheeler (Snowbasin area) Creeks indicate they came from the same genetic stock. Other populations have slight variances to these.

Good habitat and good water quality are more valuable than fin worn, yellow fleshed, hatchery degrades. If we protect these wild populations habitat and work to improve the habitat of other areas then we can expand the range of these quality fisheries.

Wyoming2 - catching one of those freshwater bonefish, i.e. whitefish, has always been alot of fun. They are a Utah native salmonid.

By the way, I will need some volunteers to help do some revegetation on the Weber. Based on last years experience, Kent Summers wants to do it the end of March or beginning of April.

[wellsw]

Wes,

I would love to get my scouts up on the weber to help with the revegitation. How should I get a hold of someone to find out dates, times, and location?

[DrewTrout]

Juke...

You forgot to mention those fun pyloric ceaca. Always fun counting those slimy things.

[Craig]

I would be willing to come and help(If work permits). Just post and let me know the official date.

[Vinny]

RAW

If I wanted to catch stocked fish I would go to a trout farm or a stocked private pond or river where you have to pay (more) to catch fish. Do you really think that these guys that spend thousands of dollars on guided trips to stocked waters get as much enjoyment out of it as those who fool a wild trout into taking an aritficial fly? I guess to me it just seems more of a challenge to catch the wild trout, even if it is smaller. And the colors, well, they're worth more than a hundred planters.

[cardiac]

RAW, Wes, Ouzel, Drew, Ed, Curtis, Wyo and the rest, this might be off the subject also, but how long is a planter a planter? What I'm getting at is- after a planter is put in and it somehow survives, when it's time to spawn, the fish lay eggs, the eggs get fertilized, the eggs hatch, the fry's grow and the cycle is repeated. Is the second generation a wild trout? Third, fourth etc. Maybe the first week or two the planter is easily caught. If it survives, say a month or into the planting does it get a little more wary, smarter. I hear people say planters are stupid. Does it learn to be a wild fish. If it survives does nature trigger a response to tell it to eat flys, aquatic insects etc and that the pellet is not the only food out there? Spawn and reproduce- begat wild trout..........I WANT TO KNOW BROTHERS OF THE ANGLE
I'M GETTING CONFUSED....................8^o

[LIV2FSH]

Cardiac,
I heard once that after 4 generations, a self sustaining population of trout are considered "wild". Can't remember where I heard it. So don't quote me!
Tight Lines, Bruce.

[RAW]

Hi Cardiac,

This comes from a study done in Montana on the Madison. The reference comes from the book, "The Living River," by the late Charlie Brooks, who fished in Yellowstone extensively, and I believe he relied on the Montana Fisheries personel for his statistics. The stats come from the early 1960s so things may have changed, yet it is still interesting. Quote: "It has been found...that in most planting situations 70 percent of the hatchery trout died within four weeks and 95 percent died within four months even if angling was not allowed."

In 1972, Montana stopped the stocking of hatchery trout in all Blue Ribbon streams. According to Brooks, not only have the numbers of fish increased, but the size of fish has increased too. In controlled experiment areas on the Madison the numbers of trout had quadrupled in areas where stocking was stopped.

I believe that planters are great for urban fisheries, marginal waters or waters that have winter kill. This allows for a put-and-take fishery. Waters, particularly streams, rivers and lakes with inlet and outlet streams should be managed and maintained as wild, reproducing fisheries. Sometimes this management may call for the moving of streambred trout from one section to another to get them established or trapping SOME of the spawners and milking them of eggs and milt to help them along too. If the fishery is able to be self-sustaining without our help, all the better.

[Wyoming 2]

Usually, the reason "planters" are used is because natural reproduction is not possible...or, the fish are designed to be put and take (in other words, harvested by fishermen). But, as far as I am concerned, if a fish reproduces naturally and if its offspring survive, they are wild (I don't know what a biologist would say). Also, in reference to Cardiac's quote on the survival of hatchery trout...I hope that is still not the case. In most of our stillwaters and many of our streams and rivers, hatchery trout are still used to maintain the population. If you look at planters as only those fish stocked at catchable size, those numbers may be correct (heck, I don't know), but if you are including fingerling "planters", I can't help but believe that 95 percent within the first four months to be way too high!

[DrewTrout]

Cardiac...

By simple definition, a planter is a fish that was "planted" in a body of water. A wild fish is one that began life in the wild. Based on that, a fertilized egg that was artificially placed in a river is a planter.

Wy2...

To expound upon RAW's comments on the study. In order to fully understand the study, you need to understand the scope of the study. Was this study carried out on waters that already had wild, self-sustaining populations. Based on RAW's quote, I am going to assume they did.

So, If they were stocking catchables, the following scenarios are possible.

1. Angler harvest.
2. Predator harvest.
3. Starvation
4. Disease (Genetic or other)
5. Competition

If they were stocking sub-catchables, the following scenarios are possible.

1. Predator harvest.
2. Starvation
3. Disease (Genetic or other)
4. Competition

In either scenario, I see RAW's figures entirely possible. If they are sub-catchables, they could have been preyed very easily on by adult fish as well as mammals and birds. This is exactly the scenario at Pineview with Tigers. The adults keep eating the young. This can be rectified to an extent. By stocking subcatchables in nursery waters (backwaters, areas with cover, etc...) these fish have a better chance of survival. If you stock them, like is often done, in a big pool; it is like ringing the dinner bell.

If these waters were devoid of fish, the factors that may have made these waters lack fish in the first place, may have killed them off.

I will also assume that the authors of the study postulated several different hypothesi as to why 95% of the fish were removed one way or another from the system.

Anyway, you are right. Stocking is used for waters where natural reproduction does not occur (often with fingerlings) and in put and take fisheries. Furthermore, stocking is used to relieve pressure on heavily fished waters where harvest is allowed - such as Strawberry. Stocking is also used to promote fisheries and make them more desirable - such as splake in Causey. Finally, stocking is used as a biological management tool. Stocking hybrids such as wiper or musky allows biological control of panfish and forage base while not allowing the numbers of the stocked fish to get out of hand because they are sterile.

[Wyoming 2]

Drew Trout, thanks for the info...I guess I misunderstood the quote--I thought that the 95 percent die off within the first four months occurred without fishing pressure (I also assumed that the stocked fish were the only game species present within the water). If the 95 percent die off occurred in lakes or reservoirs where there is little or no reproduction, then the only good time to fish them would be in the four months following the lake's stocking. This idea, however, is false...most of the lakes I fish have no natural reproduction and can be good on almost any given day!

[RAW]

I'd have to go back (which I will do) and read the entire section on the study. I'm assuming that the study was done on the Madison River in MT since that is what the book is about. The text does indicate that there was no (legal) fishing allowed in the control area so angling (legal) was not a factor. If I remember right, the reasons for the 95 percent die off was due to starvation and exhaustion from fighting the current and possibly exhaustion from being chased around by larger wild trout. I think the whole premise of the study was that in areas where natural reproduction is taking place and you dump in a bunch of catchables, the catchables chase the smaller wild trout out of their holding lies and the small wild trout die of exhaustion and then the planters die for what ever reasons: starvation, exhaustion or disease?? The bottom line was a net loss in trout numbers and according to the findings of size. I'll post the actual study text when I get some time to reread it. Like I say, the hatchery program may have come some distance as far as hardiness of fish etc. since the 60s. Or, maybe it hasn't!