Upload
trannhu
View
214
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Role of Hatcheries and Stocking
in Fisheries Management
Chapter (8) 9PA Fish and Boat Commission, Benner Spring State Fish Hatchery (Fish
Culture and Research Station), State College, PA
Thought for today: “Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the
same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as
that!” -Lewis Carroll, mathematician and writer (1832-1898)
Fish Propagation -- Aquaculture
Agriculture vs aquaculture
Private vs public
Propagation
– Food fish
– Stocking out
– Ornamentals / aquarium hobbyists
Bowden National Fish Hatchery, Bowden, WV
Importance of stocking programs and
fish hatcheries to recreational fishing
How important? Very, some, little, not
MI – 40% of recreational fishing depends on
stocking
Great Lakes – 70% salmonid fishery relies on
stocking
Pacific Northwest coastal fisheries – 70-80%
It’s important!
History
First method of fisheries management
History—U.S.
Fish were abundant
Fish Hatcheries sprung up in mid 1800s
Theodatus Garlick
History—U.S.
Fish mgt dominated by fish culture
– 1870 American Fish Culturalists Association
– 1871 U.S. Commission on Fish / Fisheries
Spencer Baird
Cottus bairdi
– US Bureau of Fisheries (re-name / re-org 1903)
Common carp
History—U.S.
Little evaluation of stocking programs
– Goals were never clearEx:
Maintain quality fishing
Protect quality and diversity
Maintain a healthy aquatic environment
Meet the demand for angling
Provide a diversity of fish species
– Success measured by # stocked (not
quality/genetic diversity)
History—U.S.
– So, hatcheries closed and stocking declined
– FWS now only supports 11 taxa
– Account for only 8% of fish stocked
– Now mostly at state/conservation organization level
1/3 of state workers involved in fish culture/stocking
1/3 of state fisheries expenditures are for hatcheries/stocking
Wild vs. Hatchery Fish: are
hatchery fish inferior?
Altered survival
Loss of innate behaviors, instinct
– Spawning times
– Socially aggressive
– Predator avoidance
– Inefficient foragers – less growth
Fitness reduced
Artificially selected genetics
“Domesticated”
So yes probably
Propagation has become a “double edged sword”
Current Philosophy on Stocking
Biologists do not agree
– Example: Stocking of king salmon in Lake
Michigan
Current Philosophy on Stocking
Two Schools of Thought
1. Purist
2. Pragmatist
Goals--AGAIN
Long-term targets
– Establish trout fishery in tailwaters of
Raystown Lake
– Establish native trout fishery tailwaters
– Explicitly justify needs before stocking
Objectives
Short-term quantifiable statements
– Maintain catch rate of brook trout in Bells Gap
Run after stream reclamation at 2 fish per
hour, 1 of which should be quality size or
better in 3 years from re-establishment of
stocking
Criteria
Evaluate stocking program
– Are objectives being met?
– What are the outcomes?
Current Stocking in NA
Difficult to summarize
104 taxa (in US in 2004)– 82% in number were sport fish or sport fish forage fish
– ½ of the fish species propagated were imperiled
– Dominated by sports fish (2010)72% by number
82% by mass
Current Stocking in NA
Decrease in warmwater species (1999)
– By state (43 of 50):
Channel catfish
Largemouth bass
Bluegill
– By number:
47% HYBRID striped bass and striped bass
Current Stocking in NA
Increase in coolwater species
– Most states:
Walleye
Sauger
Yellow perch
Musky and tiger musky
Saugeye
– By number:
Walleye (92%, 1995-96)
Walleye (60% in 2004, 1% in mass)
Most are fry (94%; 1996)
Current Stocking in NA
Increase in coldwater species
– Most states
54% are fingerlings
24% are catchable-sized fish
– The most stocked
276 million fish (1995-96)
Rainbows: 5% by number and 50% by mass
(2004) (c.f., walleye)
Tables 14.1-14.6 (2ND edition)
PA Stocking
2016 Summary of Planned Adult Trout Stocking**
Water Number Brook Brown Rainbow Total Trophy***
Streams 723 431,710 610,580 1,499,210 2,541,500 7,190
Lakes 123 90,280 31,490 498,030 619,800 1,340
Combined 846 521,990 642,070 1,997,240 3,161,300 8,530
Cooperative Nurseries (approximately) 737,000
Total to be Stocked 3,898,300
http://fishandboat.com/stockwarmc_prior.htm
Stocking Programs
Introductory or Establishment
– new or renovated waters
Stocking Programs
Enhancement
– Value-added approach
– Augmentation
Supplemental
Maintenance, e.g., 2-story fishery
Kinds of FISHERIES Supported by
Fish Propagation Programs
Put-and-take fishery
Chestnut Ridge Regional Park -- Kid’s Fishing Rodeo
Please respect the fish and return it immediately after it is caught.
Kinds of FISHERIES Supported by
Fish Propagation Programs
Put-grow-and-take
– Cheaper
Other Kinds of Hatcheries
Research/Experimental
Conservation (E/T species)
Stocking—Things to consider
Why?
– Goals and Objectives
– Good reasons
– Bad reasons—political, public demands
Stocking
Which taxa?
– 2004,
60% of fish stocked were walleye
50% by mass were trout (5% in number)
Stocking
What size?
– Larger fish survive better
– “large” individuals account for 50% of stocking
Stocking
How many?
Stocking
When and where?
– Truck following problem
Stocking
What quality—genetics?
– “Domestication” – always some
Stocking
Physiological integrity?
– Swim bladder problem
– Prepared diets
Changes behavior of fish
Stocking
Disease?
– Whirling disease in trout/salmon
– Transferred to wild stocks
Stocking
Handling history?
– Soft release
– Hard release
Stocking
What quality
– natives vs. non-natives??
– hybrids or not??
Stocking
Economics
– Hard to quantity all benefits
– Must assess and monitor
Stocking
Assessment of success
– sample, monitor, survey
– creel surveys
Stocking
Do you need to???
– Many people criticize it
– Anglers demand it
Conclusions
Legitimate part of fisheries– Conservation
– Recreation
Proximate solution
Many costs and benefits to consider
“The arc of the fish culture pendulum has come full swing: from early consideration as a universal fisheries management panacea through a transitional period of questioning and disrepute, to final recognition as an indispensable tool when appropriately integrated with other equally essential fisheries management protocols” (Radonski and Martin 1986)