Purely Hypothetical Question

[Stripminer]

I would never do this but always wonder what would happen if......

Would "transplanting" stock fish into a WTMA be beneficial or a complete disaster for the WTMA.

I personally think that the fish introduced to the river would upset its "balance" and that the stocked fish would eat too much of the river's insect / forage fish.

On the other hand, wouldn't it be nice to increase the number of fish in the WTMA's one or two at a time? The stockers might enjoy the cold tailwaters and flourish.

Again this is a thought provoking question, I don't plan on doing it and I certainly don't recommend trying it either. i bet it's illegal too. I'm just curious what others might think or if anyone has knowledge of programs that have done just this.

[Keats]

Many CT class 2 and 3 wild trout management areas are stocked. The recruitement of stocked fry and fingerlings is known to help the increase the population of "semi wild" trout. In these cases it is spawning success of brown trout that would be limiting the fishery if not stocked.

Some class one wild trout management area are short and sandwiched between stocked area. They will see in migration of stockies. Still having reasonable numbers of wild fish while skipping a stocking beat increases the chances of the angler to catch a wild trout.

Stocked trout are known to increase pressure and that can lead to more angler caused mortality on wild trout. That's not a good thing. The stocked trout could increase genetic pollution or disease problems. The stockies can competet for food habitat space.

In short, nothing I'm in favor of. I don't like catching stockies in places that I think are truly wild trout water. They annoy me.

[WhipFish]

I know of one river that is a Class 1 for a short section and a normal stocked type below it and the stocked fish swim up into the WTMA area.

[Apache Trout]

Tom, I saw what I think was a rainbow swim by the tree swing. I think he must have come up from the TMA. I've also been told there are a few wild rainbows in there too.

[Escapepod]

From what I've read about the recent Federal court ruling on the count of hatchery raised steelhead being added to native populations with regards to Endangered Species Act (ESA)....The hatchery fish are sub-standard to wild fish for a number of genetic and physical reasons. If you introduce hatchery fish to a wild strain and they intermix, the wild strain genetics can be compromised. The native fish usually are stronger, have resistence to certain fungus and bacteria and are more likely to survive than hatchery rearded fish. In addition, certain genetic coding can be lost which will impact the hundred of years of imprinting that has shaped each anadromous and native strain.

The simple statement "there is no appreciable difference between domestic fish and native fish"....could not be further from the actual truth. Consider, the domestication of any animal from it's closely linked relative in the wild and the same logic train holds true for fish. In fact the aquafarming movement for Atlantic Salmon is being seriously questioned due to the unitnended consequences and the impacts the farming has had on native populations. The whole argument is quite interesting and I encourage all who are interested to do some research on the matter. I'll bet you'd be suprised at what you learn and it will ultimately provide a better understanding of the quarry.

[Kype]

This is interesting. In discussing this topic I think it is important to note that brook trout are the only native species of char/trout in Connecticut. That being said I would agree introduction of hatchery brook trout into a for real wild all natural like totally granola brook trout population is NOT a good idea. In wild populations of exotic, non native species, brown and rainbow trout, there could be wise re-introduction of superior exotics or better yet the elimination of the exotics and re-introduction of wild stock brook trout.
I can't help but question the stocking of exotic trout in our native Atlantic salmon rivers now under restoration. I realize it is unpopular to disagree with the stocking of exotic trout in our Atlantic salmon rivers under restoration.
Then again let's be real about Atlantic salmon restoration in the US. There isn't a viable population of Native Wild Atlantic salmon in all of the US. The Penobscot River Atlantic salmon have been hatchery reared for over 100 years and every stream imaginable including our Connecticut River has Penobscot River Atlantic salmon hatchery influence. The fear of Atlantic salmon aquaculture escapees having a negative impact on US Atlantic salmon is humorous at best. With the present approach to Atlantic salmon restoration we can be assured of great spending and minimal returns. If given an opportunity I would use aquaculture as a means to saturate the habitat with millions of smolt and we would have returns. We do not need to commit ourselves to investing in the ownership of more hatcheries with over a million dollar a year basic operational expenses plus employee salary, and God only knows how much more additional expenses to merely continue the inbreeding programs we now have. It is not working with a big expense and then we continue to stock exotic trout on top of salmon in all but Maine Rivers. No this approach is foolish at best. I have read that river reared smolt from both wild breading and fry stock out are, due to the impact of acid rain, unable to make the transition from fresh to salt water yet it is fry stocking that we primarily do. The experts tell me smolt stocking gives a higher return of adult salmon. It is the scarcity of eggs and money that restricts us from larger numbers of smolt stocking.
If instead of attacking the aquaculture industry, which can produce millions of fish of all age classes for us to stock out we cling to some ridiculous idea that there is some small unique populations of all natural, like totally wild completely granola Atlantic salmon left in the US. Hence we will spend millions and get nothing in return.

So getting back to wild trout populations; if they are exotic trout populations there is no reason to prohibit a serious biologic assessment of the existing populations of exotic trout and enhance it with new strains of quality fish. This doesn't mean stocking of inferior hatchery domestic fish. I mean quality fish that will enhance the existing population of wild exotic trout; though by rights all exotic trout should be eliminated and wild strain brook trout reintroduced.
Personally I like the exotics and would not hesitate to improve their stocks with quality fish if appropriate as I don't fully appreciate dink brook trout and the path we are on with Atlantic salmon isn't likely to give us large numbers of adult salmon.:)

Bobby