Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RalphH]

From what I know & have read the number of hatchery fish in the system has been more or less the same number as wild fish over the long term.

I wouldn't measure "a lot" on the basis of some people's desire to catch several fish per outing.


How many more hatchery fish than wild fish do you want given the concerns about hatchery/wild fish interaction and potential damage to the gene pool of wild fish? How many rivers on the south coast have a population of steelhead that measures in the thousands? By any relative measure the Chilliwack systems steelhead stocks are in good shape.

from a values perspective I'd prefer to see the river managed as a wild only fishery - including salmon but politically I believe that won't fly.

Improvements to habitat or license structure that can stabilize and increase fish numbers and improve the angling experience make more sense to me.

[Burbot]

Out of curiosity would it not be cheaper or even more efficient in the long term to put in artificial spawning beds like Logan Lake, Inga lake etc have instead of raising and stocking fish? The limit on the local 'city' lakes was reduced to two so maybe the hatchery can not keep up? or is it because of money or space? Then they could stock non sterilized trout and they could spawn and stock the lakes that way...  or is there another reason??  I am just sort of curious...

[Every Day]

Out of curiosity would it not be cheaper or even more efficient in the long term to put in artificial spawning beds like Logan Lake, Inga lake etc have instead of raising and stocking fish? The limit on the local 'city' lakes was reduced to two so maybe the hatchery can not keep up? or is it because of money or space? Then they could stock non sterilized trout and they could spawn and stock the lakes that way...  or is there another reason??  I am just sort of curious...

The trout we stock, in many cases are a non-native fish, especially to the system. Their concern is the accidental release (through feeder stream, flood, or otherwise) of non-sterilized fish into water ways like the Fraser.

Another reason is many of the lakes they stock turn into dead zones in very hot summers. Water temp's get extremely high, and the bottom is anoxic, so the fish die. It would be useless to try to establish a spawning population.

I'm sure the hatchery can "keep up," but more fish = more money needed. They've mostly lowered limits, in my belief, to make the fish they put in last longer and provide more opportunity to people just starting out, etc. Before hand there would be individuals going down and taking out 2-3 limits of 4 fish right after the stocking. With only 500-1500 fish going in at a time, that depletes it quick.

[RalphH]

The trout we stock, in many cases are a non-native fish, especially to the system. Their concern is the accidental release (through feeder stream, flood, or otherwise) of non-sterilized fish into water ways like the Fraser.

Another reason is many of the lakes they stock turn into dead zones in very hot summers. Water temp's get extremely high, and the bottom is anoxic, so the fish die. It would be useless to try to establish a spawning population.

All the put and take fish are now sterilized. I was told this by a MOE biologist after I reported (with photo) catching what looked like a farm raised rainbow of about 3lbs from the Harrison River. He said the fish in question was likely from Lake Erroch & they had stopped stocking that lake due to concerns of stocked fish moving into the Harrison & competing with cutthroat.

Any example of lakes that are stocked even though the fish will die in summer? Here they stopped stocking Latimer Lake precisely because water quality meant stocked fish would likely die over the course of the year.

[shuswapsteve]

I'd like to see most hatcheries go the way of the dodo bird, rather than have more money uselessly put into them. It's been demonstrated they do absolutely nothing in recovery of wild runs, and that they actually harm wild runs in the process. I'd rather see money go towards stock assessment, figuring more out about life history of fish, doing more ocean survival, etc. Money would be better spent on research than pumping rivers full of hatchery fish. Money would also be better used fixing habitat we've destroyed so we can at least improve freshwater survival - the only thing we can actually do something about.

I really hope they follow through with the stock assessment and enforcement side of things that were stated in that release. We need more stock assessment and restoration. It would be cool to see that shift away from government (who keep cutting it), and over to a society who would actually be able to do it AND put it to use. Plus, we could always use more enforcement. It would be cool to see the money from the ticket they write go back into FFSBC as well...

Many small lakes have little to no natural recruitment.  If you eliminate these hatcheries you won't have a fishery on these lakes.

[Rodney]

One key point that most have missed is that sterile trout are used for stocking to maintain a quality fishery. It is difficult to manage non-sterile trout and their recruitment. For urban lakes in Region 2, they also don't have the nutrients to sustain such recruitment. Current stocking practice lets managers know exactly how many fish are going into the lakes and how many should be stocked in the future once angling effort has been taken into consideration. Stocking of sterile trout also avoid any introgression with wild stocks in the same system. Finally, the quality of fish being stocked is also just better if they are triploid.

[clarkii]

Finally, the quality of fish being stocked is also just better if they are triploid.

To enhance this point.  The quality is better as triploid fish do not put energy into reproduction,  instead focusing on growth. This leads to stronger, larger fish compared to a diploid of the same age