Impact of stocking migratory fish

[Dewy]

I`ve been thinking of late what the potential impact that stocking programs of migratory fish have on resident fish. What I am most curious is, who does the initial studies to ensure that the specific tributary can handle a population of migratory fish, and secondly, if anglers would see a reduced amount of naturally reproducing resident fish that live in the headwaters. I frequently fish a watershed that has substantial stocking and transporting program which moves mature fish up to the headwaters. These monsterous fish spawn, feed and then make their way down back to the lake. Resident populations must take a hit from the these fish, and hopefully this is taken into consideration. However I feel that it may not, because in reality money rules, and the steelhead fishing brings in more money for the community than the residents likely do (assumption). I guess on the flip side, the muskies and pike must be enjoying quite the feast during the run, as Ive seen many chrome with toothlike markings. Any thoughts, opinions, etc.

 

[Dozer]

1. MNR and various other organizations such as CRAA, TU, etc.

2. I firmly believe stocking has impacted the resident fish, in a negative way. There have been studies that indicate otherwise... a few studies indicate the stocking of migratory fish benefited the local brown trout populations, but brookie numbers declined? Either way, introduced fish leads to increased competition no doubt.

 

[Rain-Bow]

I've heard of both positive and negative impacts. Apparently each river system is affected differently. Some resident populations in tributaries such as Whiteman's Creek have benefited from migratory fish. Others not so much.

 

[iJay]

I dont think its about the money in communities. The gains I am sure would be minimal.

But it becomes a toss up.

1000 resident fish and depleting by 10% a year (which I know its more)
vs
10,000 stocked fish depleting by 10% a year.

I think its the 'logical' way to correct our mistakes of turning a blind eye to sustain an ecosystem.

Trout are an intergal part of the food chain, above and below them.

 

[Dewy]

The issue here, from what I can see, is that the migratory fish attract more tourists than the resident population. Don't get me wrong, I love fishing for steelhead, it is quite the addiction. I just know, that when the season is all over, and I am needing to scratch the itch, the population of big resident fish is dwindling; both browns and brookies.

Just something to consider. I guess the MNR and other organizations hopefully take resident populations into account when making a specific watershed a top class fishery. I think a lot of the time dams keep the migratories at bay from reaching the headwaters, but with the construction of ladders on the local waters I fish, steelies can now make it up and access 75% of the watershed.

 

[miles]

I think it definitely has an effect of the resident fish. It could be both positive and negative When released as smolts the rainbows must take a large amount of forage on their travels down stream. Not to mention the presence of mature steelhead for many months of the year that still feed. It is something that should be studied more, rainbows are not natural to the part of Canada and their impact as a fish that migrates for such a long period could be quite substantial. On the other hand the eggs and freshly hatched fish could provide something of a forage source for some resident fish (it could be small). The rainbows that decide to stay in the rivers may also push out specs and browns from rivers and become the resident fish (I caught a good number of them a long way upstream last fall) I personalty am in favor of allowing the bows to the vast majority of the river to get to the best possible spawning grounds.

 

[NADO]

Its always all about money, the biggest factor in this equation is the charter boat industry. River anglers chasing migratory and resident species do diddly squat for providing additional spending in the local economy. Sure some of us spend small fortunes on our fishing gear and at local tackle shops but this influx is nothing compared to the 50-100k boats, 400-800/day charter fee's, ice, food and the amount that lake fishermen spend on their gear makes the Kingpin Zeppelin look entry level!

Thats why we see such huge numbers of Chinook Salmon stocked by the MNR, if river anglers had a bigger say im sure that number would flip in favor of steelhead. I also wonder why there isnt much brook trout stocking efforts, it always seems to be brown trout stocking when its a resident stocking program. Whenever possible its always nice to see native species being stocked.

 

[chalkhorse]

and from what i've read, the chinooks are working their way down the st lawrence and might possibly pose a threat to the recovering atlantic salmon population...

 

[coldfeet]

Unfortunately, the rivers have been altered for the last 150 years and can't substain populations without stocking. Browns were introduced. Brookies, smallmouths, and Atlantics were original "residents" but from what I understand are struggling. I don't think anyone can accurately predict what happens when any speciie is introduced unless there has been a precedent in another similar system that has been studied. Sometimes human's belief that we can fix ecosystems that have evolved through the millenia is quite humorous. When one interest group feels another's interest conflicts with their's, politics come into play. The long term big picture for the watershed needs to be looked at.