| Trout and Salmon or habitat restoration? | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
| Total Votes : 12 | ||||||||||||||
Hatcheries, stocked salmon and trout ....They don't produce. The fish and game folks waste millions. If our license money went to habitat restoration (restore coastal wetlands, bulldoze damns and diverted brooks), we'd be much better off. We could also stock fish that will live and reproduce...
Here's an awesome article I found reading the news today:
http://www.pnj.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/05/04/millions-later-fish-hatcheries-still-dubious/8692175/
This gist of the article is: all our dough goes to trout and salmon stocking. They don't increase populations. Best case scenario is they displace wild populations.
The Neponset and Charles rivers are in my backyard. They should be filled with, seasonally, herring, shad, smelt, sturgeon, salmon, sea-run trout, stripers. Throughout the year, they should sustain near 2-dozen species of freshwater fish (There are ~10 species in the Charles with measurable populations. We don't even get creek suckers or chubs.).
Jamaica Pond, Houghton's Pond, etc., get hundreads of thousands of dollars worth of doomed trout and salmon (We can cross our fingers for an elusive hold-over that may reach 5 pounds or more). Meanwhile, the only thing that really makes it out to sea and back is the lowly eel (which I'd prefer to catch over a pampered trout any day of the week).
This isn't just about the rivers near me... Lake Cochituate (Sp), the Quabbin, Wachusset, etc. could support awesome populations of self-reporducing fish (add a few populations of self-producing baitfish, and wham--landlock stripers, hybrid stripers, channel catfish, pike, etc.)
Anyone else feel the same? Anyone work for the fish and game dept and have any insight?
Fish are a little sluggish with the cold spring. I should be fishing instead of ranting here...
5 years of the current budget dedicated to restoration and stocking new species would equal kick-@$$ fishing in 10-15 years. Fisheries would take care of themselves after that. Menino and Deval Patrick could take pictures of themselves next to huge fish instead of trucks pumping trout and salmon into Jamaica pond.
I guess the fishing tip is to call your congressman and senator. Do you have any ideas or suggestions?
How do you feel? Vote below, comment, etc.
Here's an awesome article I found reading the news today:
http://www.pnj.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/05/04/millions-later-fish-hatcheries-still-dubious/8692175/
This gist of the article is: all our dough goes to trout and salmon stocking. They don't increase populations. Best case scenario is they displace wild populations.
The Neponset and Charles rivers are in my backyard. They should be filled with, seasonally, herring, shad, smelt, sturgeon, salmon, sea-run trout, stripers. Throughout the year, they should sustain near 2-dozen species of freshwater fish (There are ~10 species in the Charles with measurable populations. We don't even get creek suckers or chubs.).
Jamaica Pond, Houghton's Pond, etc., get hundreads of thousands of dollars worth of doomed trout and salmon (We can cross our fingers for an elusive hold-over that may reach 5 pounds or more). Meanwhile, the only thing that really makes it out to sea and back is the lowly eel (which I'd prefer to catch over a pampered trout any day of the week).
This isn't just about the rivers near me... Lake Cochituate (Sp), the Quabbin, Wachusset, etc. could support awesome populations of self-reporducing fish (add a few populations of self-producing baitfish, and wham--landlock stripers, hybrid stripers, channel catfish, pike, etc.)
Anyone else feel the same? Anyone work for the fish and game dept and have any insight?
Fish are a little sluggish with the cold spring. I should be fishing instead of ranting here...
5 years of the current budget dedicated to restoration and stocking new species would equal kick-@$$ fishing in 10-15 years. Fisheries would take care of themselves after that. Menino and Deval Patrick could take pictures of themselves next to huge fish instead of trucks pumping trout and salmon into Jamaica pond.
I guess the fishing tip is to call your congressman and senator. Do you have any ideas or suggestions?
How do you feel? Vote below, comment, etc.
I could live without the trout stocking, fishing for trout in ponds and lakes don't really do it for me. But that will never happen since a lot of people enjoy catching and eating them.
Pretty sure Mass gave up the salmon program. I think the last salmons were dumped in lakes this winter. US Fisheries ended the Atlantic Salmon restoration in the Merrimack and other rivers because they deemed it a failure. Even though I have see pics of salmon caught in the river this year.
They don't stock Tiger Musky or Pike anymore, but I think we got these from another state.
Pretty much put and take trout is the only thing they stock anymore. Much rather have them dumped in rivers when they have a better chance to reproduce than in a pond. Or start their own pike and tiger program. But I don't think this happen, trout are too popular.
Pretty sure Mass gave up the salmon program. I think the last salmons were dumped in lakes this winter. US Fisheries ended the Atlantic Salmon restoration in the Merrimack and other rivers because they deemed it a failure. Even though I have see pics of salmon caught in the river this year.
They don't stock Tiger Musky or Pike anymore, but I think we got these from another state.
Pretty much put and take trout is the only thing they stock anymore. Much rather have them dumped in rivers when they have a better chance to reproduce than in a pond. Or start their own pike and tiger program. But I don't think this happen, trout are too popular.
That's really cool the salmon program was axed as a failure. Not that salmon aren't awesome, but a failure is a failure.
I guess you're right on the popularity of trout fishing. However, I can't help but think a few guys were gung-ho on trout with the intention of a real fishery and it didn't get anywhere.
Man, a few pike would be awesome. I don't think they've thrived in MA (the Concord or Charles) because there aren't enough baitfish.
I guess you're right on the popularity of trout fishing. However, I can't help but think a few guys were gung-ho on trout with the intention of a real fishery and it didn't get anywhere.
Man, a few pike would be awesome. I don't think they've thrived in MA (the Concord or Charles) because there aren't enough baitfish.
You think introducing a Hybrid to waters that don't have them will be beneficial ? The fish in some places are not growing at a fast rate as is . Adding more competition for food will not help any situation. I think the lack of baitfish in many places is what is leading to the decline of some species in rivers and ponds. Maybe we should be stocking millions of baitfish instead of the salmon they were trying to bring back. At least that way the fish populations in place can survive and maybe even thrive .
Just a thought ?
Just a thought ?
I was implying that if habitat was restored (this means the little streams and brooks the baitfish need for spawning and such) the other fish would do well. Bluegill and bass ponds will never really hold trout, as you know.
If the habitat has a little restoration and baitfish added--shad, shiners, suckers, etc--bring on the big boys.
Take it easy dude.
If the habitat has a little restoration and baitfish added--shad, shiners, suckers, etc--bring on the big boys.
Take it easy dude.
My two cents (I've already messaged you about some of these, live4fish):
(TL;DR -- Community ecology is complicated.)
Habitat restoration and protection could go a long way, but there's a lot of nuance in the design of a conservation strategy. For instance:
1) Is the ecosystem you're restoring likely to return to its original, "better" state, or a new stable state. If some species are dominant now, leaving them alone or introducing another species may not produce the changes your expecting. In biology we call this "replaying the tape" -- if you leave nature alone to her own devices, would the environment restore itself to an early state, or would it by chance or otherwise come out differently.
2) Population connectivity: If old species, or baitfish, or whatever are reintroduced, will they even be able to establish large, sustained populations? Or will limited gene flow between areas of introduction result in inbred fishes that are susceptible to disease, etc. Or in the worst case, will there not be enough resources for them to sustain their own population at all?
3) Enforcement and timing: If habitat restoration were to succeed--it would need to be protected--using all of the resources and time that requires. In some cases (for instance, the reforestation efforts across MA) this takes a VERY long time. You may not see the benefits, but presumably your children will.
That's not to say I'm against habitat restoration. I'm all for it. But it needs a lot of planning, a lot of investment, a lot of scientific data collection and consultation, with no guarantee of the desired returns.
(TL;DR -- Community ecology is complicated.)
Habitat restoration and protection could go a long way, but there's a lot of nuance in the design of a conservation strategy. For instance:
1) Is the ecosystem you're restoring likely to return to its original, "better" state, or a new stable state. If some species are dominant now, leaving them alone or introducing another species may not produce the changes your expecting. In biology we call this "replaying the tape" -- if you leave nature alone to her own devices, would the environment restore itself to an early state, or would it by chance or otherwise come out differently.
2) Population connectivity: If old species, or baitfish, or whatever are reintroduced, will they even be able to establish large, sustained populations? Or will limited gene flow between areas of introduction result in inbred fishes that are susceptible to disease, etc. Or in the worst case, will there not be enough resources for them to sustain their own population at all?
3) Enforcement and timing: If habitat restoration were to succeed--it would need to be protected--using all of the resources and time that requires. In some cases (for instance, the reforestation efforts across MA) this takes a VERY long time. You may not see the benefits, but presumably your children will.
That's not to say I'm against habitat restoration. I'm all for it. But it needs a lot of planning, a lot of investment, a lot of scientific data collection and consultation, with no guarantee of the desired returns.
I think it's healthy to question current practices. I also often wonder about the value of trout stockings, especially in unsustainable waters when there is nearly 100% first year mortality. And (apologizing in advance to all the Powerbait fisherman on these boards) I think it makes for lazy fisherman.
Before you get all misty eyed about habitat restoration…try to understand that the landscape and the waterways have changed in such a way that restoration is not going to be successful in bringing migratory fish back to Massachusetts rivers.
For example the Charles river estuary has changed dramatically. Beginning in the 1820s the area that is now the Boston back bay was actually a brackish marsh. The people of Boston filled in the tidal salt marsh over the course of 100 years with land fill so that the city of Boston could exist as you see it today. For more information on this story consult the book: "Boston's Back Bay: The Story of America's Greatest Nineteenth-Century Landfill Project"
Most of the rivers have dams or locks to prevent flooding. Even if you remove these things the migratory fish are long gone. Over fishing by humans has decimated the migratory fish on the east coast. I would argue that we should keep the dams and locks in place because removing them will allow invasive species to proliferate throughout the river ways of Massachusetts. For example, Purgatory cove in Waltham has a pernicious asian water chestnut (trapa natans) problem. If the dams and locks are removed those weeds will establish themselves in other parts of the river. See this link for more on this issue: Purgatory needs a cleaning
Salmon stocking has failed to create the hoped for restoration of the migratory Salmon because it seems that migratory Salmon have to imprint to the spawning areas before they will become migratory. It is literarily a fish and egg situation.
As for Trout stocking, I am in favor of having it continue because I like to catch trout. Also the trout stocking is one of the reasons why Large Mouth bass can grow relatively large (+5lbs) in Massachusetts. Without the trout stocking Large Mouth bass over 5lbs would be a rarity. Cormorants, Herons and Loons, which are unmanaged, that now eat a portion of the stocked trout, would eat up all the larger fish if trout stocking where to stop. Trout stocking doesn't entirely support human predators, predatory birds take a portion of the stocked fish. I have seen them do it.
See this link on how large mouth get big eating trout: Feeding trout to bass
The majority of my comments refer to the Charles River area, as that is the area I know best. But I think similar arguments can be made for most of the other rivers in Mass excepting the Connecticut river which is by far the longest river in the Northeast.
For example the Charles river estuary has changed dramatically. Beginning in the 1820s the area that is now the Boston back bay was actually a brackish marsh. The people of Boston filled in the tidal salt marsh over the course of 100 years with land fill so that the city of Boston could exist as you see it today. For more information on this story consult the book: "Boston's Back Bay: The Story of America's Greatest Nineteenth-Century Landfill Project"
Most of the rivers have dams or locks to prevent flooding. Even if you remove these things the migratory fish are long gone. Over fishing by humans has decimated the migratory fish on the east coast. I would argue that we should keep the dams and locks in place because removing them will allow invasive species to proliferate throughout the river ways of Massachusetts. For example, Purgatory cove in Waltham has a pernicious asian water chestnut (trapa natans) problem. If the dams and locks are removed those weeds will establish themselves in other parts of the river. See this link for more on this issue: Purgatory needs a cleaning
Salmon stocking has failed to create the hoped for restoration of the migratory Salmon because it seems that migratory Salmon have to imprint to the spawning areas before they will become migratory. It is literarily a fish and egg situation.
As for Trout stocking, I am in favor of having it continue because I like to catch trout. Also the trout stocking is one of the reasons why Large Mouth bass can grow relatively large (+5lbs) in Massachusetts. Without the trout stocking Large Mouth bass over 5lbs would be a rarity. Cormorants, Herons and Loons, which are unmanaged, that now eat a portion of the stocked trout, would eat up all the larger fish if trout stocking where to stop. Trout stocking doesn't entirely support human predators, predatory birds take a portion of the stocked fish. I have seen them do it.
See this link on how large mouth get big eating trout: Feeding trout to bass
The majority of my comments refer to the Charles River area, as that is the area I know best. But I think similar arguments can be made for most of the other rivers in Mass excepting the Connecticut river which is by far the longest river in the Northeast.
conneticut stocks pike,tigers,atlantic salmon,kokanee salmon,walley, trout and maybe catfish!
MA should take a look at there program!
alot of this has to do with these fish not surving in certain bodies of water! not enough food, cold water,spawn habitat!
both stocking and habitat resteration tie in together!
in stead of stocking fish that cant survive in these ponds lakes and rivers! stock something that can thrive here!!
maybe add a few more baitfish species to these places
MA should take a look at there program!
alot of this has to do with these fish not surving in certain bodies of water! not enough food, cold water,spawn habitat!
both stocking and habitat resteration tie in together!
in stead of stocking fish that cant survive in these ponds lakes and rivers! stock something that can thrive here!!
maybe add a few more baitfish species to these places
Stocking trout where there is no chance of them surviving is for the put and take fisherman ...It makes easy access across the state for those that eat what they catch . If the state only stocked waterways that can hold trout year round most people would not target them due to lack of easy access. Like Blue Magoo said the power bait fisherman . Trout need waters in the low 60;s to survive the summer . Out here in Western Mass the rivers can hold over trout and there are several lakes also . One of the best Brown trout lakes is also the same lake that the state record Pike came from.