" FYI, I've heard people say that any trout here (Farmington) without an adipose clip or an elastomer tag/dye mark is wild, and that is completely inaccurate. Most of the trout stocked in the Permanent Catch & Release/TMA are indeed marked by the state (about 10,000), but the other well over 30,000 stocked trout are NOT marked in any sort of way". Up Country Fly Shop, May 2017
A plump Brown from the Swift
I once was giving a presentation to some fly fishing group and the question came up as to whether or not many of our trout streams had populations of native (born in the stream) trout. I said that yes, many of the streams have populations of native trout but in most cases the numbers are too low to matter as far as a fishery is concerned. Then I dropped the bombshell: "If we stopped stocking for five years the catching of a trout in most New England rivers would be an event."
One guy thought I was nuts and to that I responded "What's your favorite trout stream?" He said the Squannacook. I then said "What happens if we don't stock it for five years?" We both knew the answer. Catching a trout would be an event!
Those Poor Bows
Let's face it. Our trout streams are an example of "Put & Take" and that includes any sections that we designate as "Catch & Release"(the last two years the DFW stocked thousands rainbows in the Swift in early July and then fielded complaints that the trout disappeared. They actually went looking for them!) The problem is the reliance on rainbows for stocking. It's a very short term solution for those who just want to catch fish and not worry about how they are doing it. And rainbows have a hard time making it through a freestone summer.
Success By Accident
Sometimes things just go correctly as they have on the Swift, not with the bows but with the brookies and with the browns. The place is loaded with naturally reproducing brook trout and absolutely outsized browns who get outsized (15 lbs plus) by feeding on the brook trout. It's been said that the browns do not reproduce in the Swift and they are just average stockers that then eat a lot of BT and get REALLY BIG!!! I could live with the idea of planting a population of apex predators (browns) and cutting the rainbow stocking in half or more. Brookies thrive in the Swift. Browns, although they may not reproduce, grow to be big OLD fish in the Swift. Also, Swift browns are fatter than Farmington browns. I'm not the only one to observe this. Are there too many fish stocked in the Farmy or not enough biomass for the trout to feed on?
BTW, in my experience the EB is the only freestone river in central/western Ma that holds onto its bows through the Summer. A bow or two may sneak through the Summer on the Millers or the Ware (browns do) but you can clean up at Les's Pool drifting emergers on an August morning or at the Bliss Pool on a sublime Summer evening and have your fill of bows.
THINK ABOUT ALL OF THIS!
It's 5 degrees outside. Four days to Ground Hog Day!!!
Ken
9 comments:
Ken, your comments on an "apex brown" introduction to the Swift while cutting bow stocking is interesting. I wonder if there is something to be gained from studying the "survivor strain" browns CT places in the Farmington and trying to replicate that in the Swift. What are your thoughts?
The hatchery being right next to the Swift seems like it would make this process easier for state staff. Browns particularly suited for the Swift seems like a good thing, but we also don't want them eating all of the brookies of course.
Anonymous 11:45
I don't really know what the CT "Survivor Strain" browns are up to. All I know is that they are still collecting brood stock, stripping and fertilizing eggs, hatching the eggs and then releasing the offspring. How successful this program is is anyone's guess. How far along are they, in their estimation, to the half way point or to completion of this project?
"Trying to replicate that (CT survivor strain)" would be ok if the program works. Our brook trout population and the number of outsized browns on the Swift are FOR REAL and not just the result of some project. It happened naturally without the hand of man involved. I would prefer that ecosystem.
Ken
"Also, Swift browns are fatter than Farmington browns. I'm not the only one to observe this. Are there too many fish stocked in the Farmy or not enough biomass for the trout to feed on?" While I have caught several large Farmy Browns and one over 24" (thank you soft hackle), I tend to agree that the trout/mile seems high for available biomass. For sure the angler pressure is!
Back in the 60's I saw a few trutta submarines finning under my father's boat while drifting above Bondsville Dam. I am sure they have always been around in some numbers, and knew a few fellows whom fished for them evenings with some unadvertised success.
Anonymous 10:10,
I wonder if a stream survey of Farmy biomass has been done. In particular what is the crustacean count in the C&R sections (lower than the count you would find downstream in the warmer water I bet) and what seasonal migrations do you have from the CT river into the Farmy?
Ken
I'm all about cutting rainbow numbers in favor of more browns in all streams. it only takes one a few seasons on a stream to observe that the holdover populations tend to be browns, ive taken over sized butterballs on many marginal streams like the shawsheen and in tribs to stocked ponds and to me that's an indication of their ability to survive poor conditions. On the matter of natural reproduction, if it is one's desire to catch stream born browns in MA a little research and a lot of scouting can produce these coveted specimens!
Paul Fay,
You are 100% right!!!! What bothers me is the facebook crowd that actually thinks that carpet bombing the upper swift for rainbows is actually a good fishing experience. It's as close to fishing a hatchery as one can get. Of course that's just my opinion but an opinion with a few decades of experience. Give me a dusk on the Millers with rising browns (almost always browns)
over the Y Pool any day!
Ken
Ken I'm with you I do love the swift but there is so much excellent water to fish where one can get into the mindset of times past and thats what I truly enjoy the most!
I'm not so sure I agree that catching trout would be an event if we stopped stocking in 5 years if, instead of spending millions on stocking, the money was put into habitat protection and enhancement where it will do some good. I've never understood why trout fisherman feel that they need to have the state support their fishing via stocking. Do deer hunters expect the state to manage deer herds by releasing farm raised deer? Are ducks managed by stocking? Turkey (yes they were initially returned to the region by stocking but now they are everywhere). Turkey. Same thing. And if a river simply can't support trout via stocking so what? Could they not be good bass fisheries in their own right?
Stocking is about the most fiscally irresponsible way of managing a fishery. Do a little research and you will find that at best 30 % of fish stocked are actually caught and there is minimal holdover. One river I know well is stocked at the cost of $50,000 annually and creel surveys offer a rate of return of about 25 %. That means that $12,500 went back to anglers via caught fish. Late season shocking surveys turned over minimal numbers of stocked trout but wild trout in every single stretch of river that was checked.
Put the money into habitat restoration in streams that will benefit rather than stocking trout. It works.
Unknown,
I agree with you.
Ken
Post a Comment