CT DEEP stocked tiger trout this year for the first time in a number of seasons. Tiger trout are a hybrid between brook trout and brown trout, and though they do occur in the wild, they do not occur naturally because nowhere on the planet do native brook trout populations overlap with native brown trout populations. I've caught stream born ("wild") tiger trout in CT twice. I've seen two others caught by friends, and photos of others. But most tiger trout caught by anglers in CT are hatchery fish. DEEP stands for "Department of Energy and Environmental Protection." What is a state agency in charge of environmental protection doing placing non-native, non-natural hybrid salmonids in a large number of bodies of water? It certainly has nothing to do with protecting the environment, though thousands of fisherman haven't the slightest inkling of that and are more than happy to have fish to catch. And tiger trout are prized fish. The state stocks fewer of them, just as they stock fewer 24 inch trout than 10 inch trout, so they aren't as easy to catch as the average rainbow. But that's pretty much the only reason any hatchery trout is harder to catch than any other hatchery trout, because they're all starting from the same baseline when they leave that truck and enter the river... except that tiger trout are a hybrid and their hybrid vigor is expressed by voracious eating. I've had hatchery tigers take more than a dozen whacks at a mouse in daylight, get hooked, come unglued well into the fight, then come back and slap the fly again the very next cast. This is a problem. Not only is the state stocking an unnatural hybrid trout, they are stocking one that is a voracious and indiscriminate feeder into waters with native species, sometimes even at-risk native species. This is extremely hypocritical of an environmental protection agency. But they are payed to do what the people ask. And the people evidently want more tiger trout.
In mid fall I was fishing on local waters, catching plenty of both non-native hatchery fish and native hatchery fish (brook trout, in this case), including tigers. The tigers were impressive looking fish, and I'd hesitate to call them ugly. Plus they were fun to pull on. I couldn't help but feel there wasn't anything legitimately special about them. It didn't take any special knowledge or skill, they were there and if I put a fly past them they ate it. Really they shouldn't have been there. If I could have snapped my fingers and caught nothing but fallfish this day, I'd gladly have done so. I do understand that many anglers would be thrilled to catch these tigers and would scoff at the idea of catching fallfish instead. But that's the whole problem. And it's a huge problem.
 |
| Male hatchery brook trout |
 |
| Female hatchery brook trout. |
Exactly so.
ReplyDeleteBut you are not hypocritical. Because you do not depend on hatchery fish. You would do what you do regardless of them.
That may be true, though if hatchery and non-native trout were to go away my business model would need to change.
DeleteI have caught several tigers in my life and while most were stocked fish I have taken what I believe were wild fish. Their viciousness is like not other trout. I believe that hatchery fish have a place in our world, and when I can give you a definitive answer to where that place is I'll bring it forward. As to native fish I favor leaving them alone. They have found a place here and should be respected.
ReplyDeleteWhatever the place may be, you and I can certainly agree... it need not be in wild streams.
DeleteGreat meaningful read. Very happy that you are on that CT board. You do make a difference.
ReplyDeleteHAPPY NEW YEAR!
Tie, fish, write, CONSERVE and photo on...
RM, I don't have a problem with DEEP or DFW stocking non-native trout in typical put and take streams and ponds that generally warm up in summer. When they stock over natives that have a hard enough struggle as it is, that is where I have a problem.
ReplyDeleteVirtually anywhere trout are stocked they are being stocked over native species. And I have to wonder, should trout be put where they can't survive, or where there never were trout?
DeleteI've had the opportunity to catch 5 different species of trout in CT. Dating myself, but this includes a golden. 4 of those were courtesy of DEEP. I've also caught 4 different species of stream-bred trout in CT. Three of those where a result of DEEP doing what it does. No one appreciates a native more than I. However, my best day on CT trout water was the one in which I caught a 7" tiger and a 7" inch rainbow on the next cast in the same pool. Could not believe the odds and those were special fish. I know where to go if my wife wants trout for dinner and I also know where to go to play barbless mountain goat. I appreciate having either as an option and have DEEP to thank for that.
ReplyDeleteGolden and Tiger trout aren't species, 1st off, the "golden" trout CT DEEP used to stock are a color mutation of Onchorynchus mykiss, and still just a rainbow trout. And tiger trout, of course, are a hybrid not a species.
DeletePutting that aside, the idea that stocked fish means more fish to keep is frequently proven wrong. There will always be wild brown and brook trout, and if there is less stocking there will be more wild brown and brook trout. In fact in cases like the Farmington River stocking is all that's holding the wild populations back from being sustainable enough to support harvest. Furthermore, there are a dozen or so great eating species in the CT waters incapable of supporting year round wild trout fisheries, for those who don't care specifically what species of fish they have to take home as long as it tastes good.
The fishing and fisheries management culture in New England ignores the bulk of the science in favor of a knee jerk reaction, believing that fewer stocked fish means fewer fish. This has literally destroyed native fisheries and locally extirpated rare species like Rangeley, Maine's arctic char. The reality is, if trout stopped being stocked completely, angler opportunities would improve over time, ecosystem health would improve, and total cost of managing fisheries would go down.
And, natives aren't trout. So, unrequired taxonomy lesson aside, please know I am not discounting the science behind your premise, and also have issues with some of DEEP's management strategies. For instance, most of the class 3 WTMA's should probably not be stocked. I could never understand foot long browns being dumped in good brook trout streams. This would apply to many of the Farmington and Housy tribs. On the other hand, I can think of a New Haven County stream with a healthy population of sizeable wild browns where they only stock rainbows. This makes perfect sense to me as the rainbows won't out compete the browns and, for those a bit challenged by identifying a wild fish, if you want a meal, take home a rainbow. DEEP certainly isn't perfect but, they have advanced beyond nothing other than put and take and seem to be employing more science each year. Additionally, I like a little variety!
DeleteThere exists plenty of variety of fish in Connecticut that don't cost $2.14 or more per fish to raise. The scope of trout stocking is unnecessary, environmentally detrimental and fiscally irresponsible. If the total number of lakes and streams stocked were cut in half, the benefits would be huge. When the state cut some small streams from the stocking list due to budget constraints some years back, some saw a bump in brook trout numbers for the first time since I'd known of them. They added them back to the list again after enacting the trout stamp. At very least, this should not have happened. It benefits too small a number of individuals to be worth it. Fir rivers like the Blackledge, Willimantic, and Hammonasset I can't waste time advocating for stocking to end, it just isn't worth it. But my home water and dozens of other streams across the state? It is a waste of money and man hours that could go towards something much more productive.
DeleteI would happily target other fish for the table. My wife will simply not eat them. If it isn't a trout with lemon and old bay poached in foil on the grill, I'm eating it alone. I'll even get a sneer when I bring home delicacies like porgies and black sea bass and simply release all freshwater fish other than trout. My home water is an example of a small stream removed from the list a few years ago. It has not been added back. My one minute walk to access puts me in a mile downstream of a trout park pond. There are still wild trout and whatever makes it over the spillway from the pond. I'm also guessing it has about the same biomass in fish per linear stream mile than it did when it was stocked. However, much of that biomass is now made up of fallfish. The herons are still around but, I haven't seen an otter in two years and that's pretty telling. I think you've inspired me to conduct a population check this weekend. If I do, I'll be pleased to let you know what I find.
ReplyDelete