Arizona Fly Fishing Forums  

Go Back   Arizona Fly Fishing Forums > Arizona Fly Fishing > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-27-2018, 12:53 PM
lakelady lakelady is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: White Mountains
Posts: 30
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opin...an/2030104002/

I don't know if you guys have seen this recent report about the huge water shortage the west is in. It's hard to have great tailwater fisheries now when many areas are not getting the snowpack they used to.

Some of the great western tailwater fisheries are in places that still get huge amounts of rain and snowfall every year. And I bet if you looked at the ones that are in the southwest, you would find they're also doing worse than they used to be.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-27-2018, 01:05 PM
lakelady lakelady is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: White Mountains
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by almostlost View Post
One of the issues I've heard with the decrease in wild trout is due to lack of food. Then they say they're going to introduce more fish? But they'll tell you the stockers wont have an impact on food availability for the wild fish.

Another thing is that every time there is a die off of the wild trout, the ones that survive are the strongest (hence survival of the fittest) however they can be susceptible to new diseases brought in by weak hatchery stock. Although the g&f states that this is highly unlikely due to the quality of the stock fish, why take the chance and why mess with natural selection?

It also amazes me that they're trying to eradicate the "non-native" browns due to their predatory nature, but then they'll stock a fish that is basically bred just to eat!?!
What you described is not what Darwin meant by natural selection and "survival of the fittest". Fitness and Survival are not synonyms. Survival usually has nothing to do with how "strong" an individual is and fitness in biological terms has to do with reproductive success. I would suggest reading up on evolutionary theory a little before throwing those terms around.

Also, how are browns anything but non-native?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-27-2018, 06:45 PM
almostlost's Avatar
almostlost almostlost is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakelady View Post
What you described is not what Darwin meant by natural selection and "survival of the fittest". Fitness and Survival are not synonyms. Survival usually has nothing to do with how "strong" an individual is and fitness in biological terms has to do with reproductive success. I would suggest reading up on evolutionary theory a little before throwing those terms around.

Also, how are browns anything but non-native?

"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."

If I'm talking about the fish which have survived disease and certain conditions to procreate while other fish have died off, are these not the ones who are going to leave the most copies of themselves?

The sign states non-native brown trout, and leaves out "non-native" when describing rainbow trout, eluding to the assumption that the rainbows are native. This could lead to less informed anglers thinking they are helping out the "native" rainbows by killing the non-native browns, and I think was done on purpose.
__________________
wilderfly.com
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-27-2018, 07:03 PM
almostlost's Avatar
almostlost almostlost is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 559
After all is said and done, it's a human made environment that was stocked with trout, to be manipulated as such. It's just sad when instant gratification (stocked fish) trumps quality. I know the NPS are the ones after the browns (at least mainly,) and when they are talking about increasing fees, while at the same time spending buku bucks fighting a loosing battle, it just doesn't sit well with me and makes me wonder what else they're throwing money and resources at.

I also know that AZG&F are putting in the good work reintroducing native species, and working with vets. Thanks Bryan and all you other folks!
__________________
wilderfly.com
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-24-2019, 06:36 PM
MYT1 MYT1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 70
What would be the issue with stocking non-sterile rainbow trout?

If they were to reproduce, even with wild trout, wouldn't that help increase the fish population?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-24-2019, 11:19 PM
lostdutchman's Avatar
lostdutchman lostdutchman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: tempe
Posts: 1,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by MYT1 View Post
What would be the issue with stocking non-sterile rainbow trout?

If they were to reproduce, even with wild trout, wouldn't that help increase the fish population?
Initially, yes, adding more fish increases fish populations.

The problem with introducing more unsterile hatchery trout, and giving them the ability for hybridization with the local wild fish..is that hatchery fish have been mass produced in very controlled environments, meaning they are more susceptible to disease, often times bringing those diseases with them to heir new homes, ( think smallpox, and manifest destiny) also, being born and raised In farms repetitively from the same stock, ( think inbreeding, this is why hatchery fish are noticeably uglier than wild fish, often with genetic mutations, stub noses, fin deformation, proportion problems etc) they have never had to learn how to survive, they do not carry the genes of survival that their wild cousins do, and have been passed on to, Ala survival of he fittest. If hatchery fish breed with wild fish, their dumbed down genes get passed along, instead of the wild fish, which dumbs down the fish, and lowers their survival rate. they also compete with the stronger gened wild fish to reproduce, often times creating less successful spawns. And if those spawns are successful, mortality rate of hybridized hatchery and wild fish is significant;y higher than a wild fish spawn.

Simply put hatchery fish create less genetic diversity. Dumb down the species, introduce disease, compete for food, and breeding, plus a slough of other problems that in a long term scope hurt/ destroy fish populations as a whole, not increase them like game and fish will tell you. It’s a short term solution to a problem, which will create a much bigger problem in the future.

States like Montana have proven that if you cut out hatchery supplementation, wild fish will rebound a fishery fish population at a much faster rate.

Nature knows what she’s doing, she’s been doing it for millions of years before we came along thinking we know better. We just gotta five the fish a chance.

The trout in lees ferry have been fighting hard against the decisions of the state for years, poor management, shocking, floods in fall, you name it, and they have somehow started to show signs of success, and now the state decided to give them yet another hurdle.
__________________
www.thedaggerzone.com
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-25-2019, 10:19 AM
MYT1 MYT1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostdutchman View Post
Initially, yes, adding more fish increases fish populations.

The problem with introducing more unsterile hatchery trout, and giving them the ability for hybridization with the local wild fish..is that hatchery fish have been mass produced in very controlled environments, meaning they are more susceptible to disease, often times bringing those diseases with them to heir new homes, ( think smallpox, and manifest destiny) also, being born and raised In farms repetitively from the same stock, ( think inbreeding, this is why hatchery fish are noticeably uglier than wild fish, often with genetic mutations, stub noses, fin deformation, proportion problems etc) they have never had to learn how to survive, they do not carry the genes of survival that their wild cousins do, and have been passed on to, Ala survival of he fittest. If hatchery fish breed with wild fish, their dumbed down genes get passed along, instead of the wild fish, which dumbs down the fish, and lowers their survival rate. they also compete with the stronger gened wild fish to reproduce, often times creating less successful spawns. And if those spawns are successful, mortality rate of hybridized hatchery and wild fish is significant;y higher than a wild fish spawn.

Simply put hatchery fish create less genetic diversity. Dumb down the species, introduce disease, compete for food, and breeding, plus a slough of other problems that in a long term scope hurt/ destroy fish populations as a whole, not increase them like game and fish will tell you. It’s a short term solution to a problem, which will create a much bigger problem in the future.

States like Montana have proven that if you cut out hatchery supplementation, wild fish will rebound a fishery fish population at a much faster rate.

Nature knows what she’s doing, she’s been doing it for millions of years before we came along thinking we know better. We just gotta five the fish a chance.

The trout in lees ferry have been fighting hard against the decisions of the state for years, poor management, shocking, floods in fall, you name it, and they have somehow started to show signs of success, and now the state decided to give them yet another hurdle.
Thank you so much for your reply.

Will the introduction of non-sterile trout somehow help the survival of wild trout?

Or is the introduction of sterile hatchery trout just a way to increase the catch rate in the walk-in area, with no real long term benefit to the wild fishery?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-25-2019, 04:31 PM
lostdutchman's Avatar
lostdutchman lostdutchman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: tempe
Posts: 1,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by MYT1 View Post
Thank you so much for your reply.

Will the introduction of non-sterile trout somehow help the survival of wild trout?

Or is the introduction of sterile hatchery trout just a way to increase the catch rate in the walk-in area, with no real long term benefit to the wild fishery?
studies have shown that non-sterile hatchery trout do not help the survival of wild trout over long term. for the reasons I showed before.

introduction of sterile trout are introduced solely for catch rates and to appease the masses, while hurting wild and native fish populations.. its really a vicious cycle.

the more hatchery implementation, the less wild fish there are and will be, because of hybridization, and subsequently higher mortality rates..

The cowlitz river up here ( i live in Portland now) is a perfect example of how over polluting a river with hatchery fish, kills off a once prolific local native run of fish. Sadly, that river would be almost lifeless now if it weren't for the amount of hatchery fish they put in.

the successful spawning numbers for trout are a little different, but are relatable to steelhead.

for steelhead...the return on hatchery fish ( meaning fish that are born/ released into the rivers that go to the ocean and come back ready to spawn is @ 1%, where as wild fish have upwards of @7% return rate. )

take a dive into what montana has done in the past 15-20 years as far as stopping hatchery programs and how the wild fish populations have boomed.

theres also a really good study that IDAHO has done on the same ideas. if you don't mind a lot of scientific reading.. they can be super fascinating.

hope this helps..

end of the day... catching ANYTHING in Lees ferry is a bonus, that place is simply amazing.
__________________
www.thedaggerzone.com
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-28-2019, 10:09 AM
bgiordano bgiordano is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostdutchman View Post
studies have shown that non-sterile hatchery trout do not help the survival of wild trout over long term. for the reasons I showed before.

introduction of sterile trout are introduced solely for catch rates and to appease the masses, while hurting wild and native fish populations.. its really a vicious cycle.

the more hatchery implementation, the less wild fish there are and will be, because of hybridization, and subsequently higher mortality rates..

The cowlitz river up here ( i live in Portland now) is a perfect example of how over polluting a river with hatchery fish, kills off a once prolific local native run of fish. Sadly, that river would be almost lifeless now if it weren't for the amount of hatchery fish they put in.

the successful spawning numbers for trout are a little different, but are relatable to steelhead.

for steelhead...the return on hatchery fish ( meaning fish that are born/ released into the rivers that go to the ocean and come back ready to spawn is @ 1%, where as wild fish have upwards of @7% return rate. )

take a dive into what montana has done in the past 15-20 years as far as stopping hatchery programs and how the wild fish populations have boomed.

theres also a really good study that IDAHO has done on the same ideas. if you don't mind a lot of scientific reading.. they can be super fascinating.

hope this helps..

end of the day... catching ANYTHING in Lees ferry is a bonus, that place is simply amazing.

Some of this isn't exactly accurate. Yes, Vincent's study in Montana did show they were hampering wild populations to an extent. But what isn't taken into account when most people cite this is the sheer number of fish that were being put into those streams.

You mentioned Idaho's study. Idaho has shown that if you stock fish on top of wild fish, you can have almost no effect on the wild fish population IF you stock at the correct rates. This involves knowing what fish populations are at and understanding what that body of water can handle for supplemental stocking.

Remember, Vincent's studies were done in the 1970's. Fisheries management has come A LONG way in the last 40 years. Montana hasn't gotten away from stocking completely like some are led to believe. But they make better decisions now. Biologists don't stock fish for the sake of stocking fish anymore, regardless of what people may believe. They take into account current population levels and what anglers want (overall) for that body water. In Lee's Ferry case, this is supplemental stocking. Supplementing the population to increase angler satisfaction while not impacting the wild population.

As far as disease goes, AZGFD's hatchery fish have some of the strictest disease testing standards in the United States. To the point that the hatchery system has chosen to change sources of certain species because some states don't have the strict disease testing. And we are talking about stocking fish in a system that has tested positive for whirling disease. The biggest worry about fish diseases in Lee's Ferry are the anglers who are not cleaning their boots and then taking dirty boots into another stream.

You are right that nature knows what it is doing. In this case, there aren't enough resources to make most people happy. The wild population isn't large enough to support high angler satisfaction. But, consider the Fate of Stocked Trout study that AZGFD has done. https://fishaz.azgfd.com/fisheries-m...-4-year-study/. Most fish aren't persisting for long. These won't be in the stream long enough to hamper the wild fish. Additionally, the amount of fish that are going in are a very small drop in the bucket of a giant river. And they are triploid fish, so they will not be spawning with wild fish.

Finally, I understand people being upset about stocking fish on top of wild populations. I greatly prefer wild fish to stocked fish to the point that I almost always avoid stocked waters and seek out wild fish. That being said, EVERY TIME you are creeled by an AZGFD employee, your response matters. AZGFD has done extensive creeling on Lee's Ferry, and the fact is the majority of anglers give responses that lead to it being a low satisfaction water. Whether you believe it to be good or bad, angler satisfaction is what drives management decisions on some of AZGFD's higher profile waters. And the dissatisfied portion of the anglers are ALWAYS louder than the satisfied ones. The way things get changed is when people voice their opinions about how they are dissatisfied. The way things stay the same (ie not stocking on wild fish populations, special regulations) are when people contact AZGFD and express that they are happy with management decision. Rarely does that happen.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-29-2019, 04:00 PM
lostdutchman's Avatar
lostdutchman lostdutchman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: tempe
Posts: 1,266
interesting.

obviously there are lots of studies, conditions, populations etc to consider, i obviously was speaking on a very broad basis.

Its hard for me to completely agree, studies or not as I'm first hand watching the degradation of wild salmonids in the PNW in no thanks to hatcheries.

but there are a couple shining examples that give us hope moving forward, Take the skagit and sauk, which were both re-opened for a full winter fishing season this year , a first since 2010 when the rivers steelhead populations were on the brink of collapse.. they cut off hatchery supplementation, and angling to the winter run ( closing january 31, so you could actually still fish for a early return of winter fish, and to further eliminate the hatchery run, as they are the early returning fish) , and in 9 years the population came back to being one of the highest winter returns of wild steelhead in ANY PNW waterway ( upwards of 10k fish) with poor ocean conditions, predator population levels at historic highs, a HUGE demand from commercial fishing, tribal fishing, etc. Basically agains all odds situation.

this again is broadly speaking as there are A TON of factors, but if at the end of the day if it CAN help wild fish by not implementing poorer quality stockers, then WHY NOT?!

Lees ferry is a prime case that if you leave it alone, it will prosper, look at how good those browns have done ( even with continuous eradication efforts), and the recent wild rainbow health, size, and population..

if angler retention is the goal. then sure. plant triploids and let the people retain them. ( still not a great idea IMO)

the problem is, the hatcheries would need to mark those fish so that the angler could differentiate between hatchery and wild at a quick glance. '

I 100% agree with you need to make your voice heard to AZGF, problem is that we ( conservation minded flyfisherman) are a very small percentage of the angling population.

education and a cultural change is what really needs to happen.

also, thanks for chiming in, I love conversations like this, and learning everyones takes.

hopefully it causes a few more to look further into these situations, educate themselves and form their own opinions on the situations.

cheers!
__________________
www.thedaggerzone.com
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Logos, Trademarks are property of their owners. Other content Copyright 2006-2015 azflyandtie.com . All Rights Reserved.