Trout management

[AgMD]

Just a reminder, there will be a meeting with Dr. Bachman on the subject of trout management at the Burr and Burton school , tomorrow Aug.29th. Should be most interesting even if you are not involved in protesting the plans to stock the Battenkill, and even more so if you are.
More info here:
www.tuswvt.org/Bachman.shtml
AgMD

[logie316]

Anyone else attend this? I thought it was fascinating stuff, although the Q&A nearly exploded into chaos.

[douglyons]

Dr. Bachman's presentation was indeed fascinating.

The Q & A afterwards was merely a preview for what the Sept 21st meeting will be like.

If you like your trout on the wild side please please please attend on the 21st of September and be seen and heard. Sadly, this has boiled down to an us versus them contest; which the state allowed to happen.

Dr. Bachman's plain talk was very clear and concise. The folks in Vt Fish and Wildlife have got to undertand that splitting this thing down the middle is like slicing an onion - it stinks!

Mark your calanders for the 21st of September - Burr and Burton Acadamy. If your inclined our TU Chapter will be meeting on Sept 12 at the Museum of Flyfishing in Manchester to strategize. 7 pm is the meeting time.

Thanks.

Doug

[AgMD]

Bottom line as I see it, You can have a stocked stream, You can have a wild stream, but you can't have them on the same stream.
AgMD

[JoeOverlock]

I think I now know more about trout then trout do.

A+ presentation.

[logie316]

My take on it is that the main point is to be open an honest about the options. Stocking the Battenkill is not wrong on its face, but if your stated purpose is to maintain a healthy wild trout population, stocking the river is contradictory.

If your purpose is to open the river to more fishing, and easier catch opportunities, then stocking is the way to go.

Personally, I agree with the former. Keep it wild; rebuild and maintain the population through other measures. Don't stock the river until you've given up on trying to maintain a wild population.

That said, I think it's a bit misleading that TU extends Dr. Bachman's 12% loss figures over 20 years to demonstrate the impact of the VT Fisheries plan.

[ctroy36]

logie316

Now that you mention it, I wondered about some of Dr. Bachman's numbers. If, as you note, one carried his wild-trout losses out far enough in time they would all disapear.

However, what really puzzled me was his finding that no stocked fish survived. Now, maybe Spruce Creek is a special place, but around here stocked trout do survive and hold over from year to year. The Housatonic is a prime example. Not only do the browns survive, but the rainbows that were inadvertantly put in this year have made it through the summer and are being taken now.

Dr. Bachman's presentation was superb and gave those who saw it a rare glimpse of how trout really live, so I'm not critical of that. I'm just wondering where all those stocked trout went.

I'm all for leaving the Battenkill wild and Vermont TU will need all the ammunition it can muster to win that battle and I support their effort.

[logie316]

I agree. I'm all for keeping the river wild (and making rivers wild where they can support self-sustaining populations).

Dr. Bachman's methodology differs enough from most stocking plans, that I think the depletion numbers are probably not applicable to today's technique. Bachman doubled the population starting in June (May at the earliest) so it's possible that at least some of the depletion comes from significantly increased competition at a relatively low point in the water height.

It's also possible that those two or three years were an abberation that would not continue.

His main point still holds however. You can't stock a stream where you are also trying to maintain a healthy wild population.

[douglyons]

Some good comments. Regarding the extrapolating the 12% loss from Spruce to the Battenkill I have to agree and will discuss with our web master removing that.

I think the point is clear enough and folks at the presentation saw quite clearly - stocked trout run amuck.

I think folks did not quite hear Bachman correctly when he talked about the loss of the stocked fish - they were gone from the area. I do not believe he said that in all cases that they died. Maybe I am wrong. I think the inference was that they went elsewhere causing additional harm.

With that said, it is pretty obvious that MOST stocked trout in MOST streams do not survive for long. In Montana when they were looking at the Madison I believe the return rate to anglers was something like 15% and the carry over was well under 10% so that would mean that at least 75% of the trout stocked did not survive; I believe the level was much higher. And at the same time the wild population was negatively impacted. So the state was throwing away 75% (at least) of it's investment on an annual basis and harming the wild population to boot. They got smart and now n longer stock trout in rivers.

When Montana stopped stocking and closed the Madison for three years it began stocking a previously unstocked tributary. Guess what happened .... The numbers of wild trout nose dived and the stockies all but dissappeared. When stocking ended on the control stream within a couple years the numbers were back to where they were pre-stocking.

Now, we are not blessed with the rich rivers of Montana or Pa. The Battenkill will never ever produce the numbers that are seen in the super fertile spring creeks and tailwaters around the country. But it still does to this day provide a nice challenging fishery for skittish wild trout. It can be better, no question.

To use Bachman's analogy, the Battenkill is a black diamond trout stream. There are plenty of easier rivers. Not every river need be a high yield fishery to be worthy. The Battenkill can provide a lot of great memories and I for one don't see how stocking can enhance that experience one iota.

Thanks.