Discussion: your opinions on mass dfw stocking program

[ma_fisherman]

I got on this topic a few days back on another thread and i wanted to hit on it with a little more depth and hear what others think.  Let me start with the positive first.  I have been really impressed over the yrs with the development of the rainbows that are the staple of the mass program.  It seems that these fish have been reaching quality size and have some heft to them.  They seem to be healthy, strong fish with brilliant color.  I also think that stocking the tiger trout gives a chance at a nice change of pace fish to catch.  The broodstock salmon they stock into many different waters also give a little chance at a bonus fish that many people might never had a chance to catch.  I know they put some salmon in my local trout pond, horn pond, and ive seen a couple caught and it is really exciting thing for everyone when someone pulls a 5-10 lb salmon out of a small surburban pond like horn pond.  I hope they continue to think outside the box a bit in terms of stocking these rare catches into our water.  Another area where the program has improved in my opinion has been in regards to putting more thought into the timing of stocks....and when it may be more appropriate to stock a certain specie.  For example, at my local trout pond, horn pond, they put the rainbows in early spring and hold off on the browns until the final stocking sometime in may.  The thinking behind this, from what i have been told by a conservation agent, is that the browns are a heartier species that can tolerate slightly warmer temps.  Horn is not a pond with suitable deep, well oxgenated water for trout to holdover in the summer but at least the browns may fair a bit better than the rainbows in late spring/early summer.  This may seem a fine detail with little consequence but it shows that at least some people down there are thinking about these things and that can only be a good thing.

For all the positive there are also quite a few disappointments in my opinion.  Now in all fairness a lot of my feelings about what the ma program should be doing is in comparison to the nh program which is the other state with which i am familiar with the stocking program.  I understand that nh has more resources in terms of coldwater fisheries (trout habitat) and this is the reason for some of the discrepancies with the 2 programs.  For example, nh continues to stock until mid july while ma stops by the end of may.  I think that even though ma does not have a lot of water that can sustain trout all summer long, we do still have some water here that is definitely capable of taking trout through mid july.  It would be nice to see the ma program active further into the summer so the appropriate waterbodies could continue to receive stockings.  I also feel that ma could stock more regularly while they are active.  Many of the waterbodies recieve only 1 or 2 stockings (prob the majority actually) and i would like to see the trucks come a bit more often and put less fish in when they do come.  Instead of dumping 1000 twice how about 500 4 times??

Another concern of mine has been the info available.  I like the structure the ma program uses with the division into districts.  this makes sense on a lot of levels and should make it easier to provide detailed, accurate stocking info.  Instead all we get is the list every friday with what waterbodies were stocked.  how about making the info accessible on the species stocked, age/size of the fish, and the total numbers.  If this info could not be made available weekly then how about monthly....or even once after the season....this would at least give the stocking tendencies of the state so we will know what to expect the next yr.  If nh can do it then why cant we??  Ive also had trouble getting info from the office when i call.  I just want basic info like....did you put any browns in (such and such waterbody) or just rainbows??  or....did any breeders or older fish get stocked into a certain waterbody?? I get the runaround and double talk....check the list on friday is all they keep sayin.  This info in my opinion does not need to be kept under lock and key....does it??

Finally, i wish they would broaden the program to include more species other than trout.  I know they were experimenting with stocking pike and muskies and im not sure if there were reasons they felt it wasnt successful or not but either way i wish a chance at trophy fish like these was given to us.  On another site someone suggested that it could be possible to stock walleye but ma considers them an invasive species....not sure about this but sure would be fun if we had walleye stocked waters.  I honestly do not know much about the ecological or biological considerations in stocking other species but i sure wish other opportunities were available.

Sorry to ramble but i just wanted to get some of that off my chest...anyone with opinions.....agreements or disagreements with my post...please feel free to share.  thanks.

[ebour]

Yeah, long pond seems suitable for lake trout. I just want them to stock more brookies, and also, stock them only a few times, not every other week for an entire spring

[Shimpdogg]

Stocking pike is kinda a bad idea. They are apex predators and could ruin a lakes ecosystem. I know people love catching them, especially through the ice but in my opinioin they should not stock them. In Maine they are invasive to trout ponds and can ruin the few coldwater fisheries that we have here.
 
Mass wildlife does a good job with the fish and as far as the info goes I am with you there. There is no need for the mass wildlife to be all "cloak and dagger" about this stuff. Aren't they working for us???

[JFeen82]

I've been satisfied with the stocking program in Ma. I just wish they would stock pike and especially salmon more often and put more fish in than they do. Otherwise I have no complaints, but it would be.nice to see the age/species they stock into certain lakes, ponds and rivers.

[jtk2]

How bout some more tiger muskys?

[sull155]

I think the MA stocking program is excellent considering the resources.  if there was an unlimited well of money from which to draw, there are a lot of things that could be improved, but all things considered i think we are pretty spoiled.  We all know that the eastern Mass liberal elite who set the policy consistently cut funding to sportsman programs when there is a budget crunch.  I dont know how many (none?) of them are out chasing rainbows and browns every weekend and understand how passionate we are about our sport.  And, we are also a dying breed.  Fishing is typically not a young man's game at this point, ebour not included.  And the gov't knows it. 
All non native (invasive) species have the potential to ruin or destroy a fishery when introduced.  I read a story on one of the boards that a laker was reported as having been caught out of quinsigamond and the f&g biologists were freaking out because of the negative impact potential.
I think the lack of public information is either done on purpose, to keep us guessing and to keep the sporting aspect of finding the fish as part of the game.  Or, that the info that is released is done so by some staffer who just doesnt have the time to be sitting in front of a computer constantly updating all the info that us fisherman want so badly. 
there are f&g employees who look at these sites, so i'm sure they could step up and give us all the details of why such and such is done in such and such a way, but really, if we were all able to ask every question we wanted an answer to, we would probably be looking at a 10000 page book of answers. 

[FishingNewEngland]

Stocking pike is kinda a bad idea. They are apex predators and could ruin a lakes ecosystem. I know people love catching them, especially through the ice but in my opinioin they should not stock them. In Maine they are invasive to trout ponds and can ruin the few coldwater fisheries that we have here.
 
Mass wildlife does a good job with the fish and as far as the info goes I am with you there. There is no need for the mass wildlife to be all "cloak and dagger" about this stuff. Aren't they working for us???

I don't fish for trout. For me, the stocking program is baisically garbage. I'd like to see some muskie or pike go back into certain lakes. And as far as being invasive, the reason behind that is bucket biology. The state caters to the trout purists and charges the rest of us for it. It's just plain stupid. I pay for my license like everyone else but don't get the opportunity to catch the fish I want to because the state barely stocks them any more.

[ebour]

i bet that laker was an april fools. no way quinsig is deep enough and cold enough. i could see onota, or long pond, or walden. i do think ou should give trout a try, they are a lot of fun, but i understand what you are saying. You know, a few more pike in the concord and some others in norton or a1 wouldnt hurt

[jtk2]

I completely agree with u mark. Im not a fan of trout. I'd love too see some more pike and musky put into lakes where they already stocked just to help get the numbers up a bit.

[v menzone]

i dont fish for trout and never will, id pay double for my liscence to get more pike and tiger stocking

[stripernut]

Some points; Rainbows and Browns are not native to MA... I doubt that there are any other waters in MA that would support fishable numbers of lakers. Walleye have a better chance of making it in many of MA waters. They use to stock Tiger Musky, I even got one myself on Pontusic years ago. 
If the trout stocking program was set up by me, I would focus more on trophie and less on put and take, but I know MANY people like eating a just stocked fish (not me). I just moved back from NH and did not like the smaller size of trout they stocked up there (on average) and am glad to catch the bigger trout in MA.
Just some thoughts...

[ebour]

I don't know, long pond is 105 feet deep and spring fed

[stripernut]

I am sure that some fish could survive there, but lakers seem to need a lot of room... If it could support a hundred fish? How long would they last?

[taxid]

Yeah, long pond seems suitable for lake trout. I just want them to stock more brookies, and also, stock them only a few times, not every other week for an entire spring

When I lived in Mass in the early 70's brookies seemed to be all they stocked.

[taxid]

I am sure that some fish could survive there, but lakers seem to need a lot of room... If it could support a hundred fish? How long would they last?

Ditto. Lakers are veracious feeders and can quickly wipe out a forage base in smaller bodies of water regardless of how good the water quality is. We have a 500 acre lake chain out here where they completely wiped out the cisco and smelt after they were planted by the state.