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)