Discussion: your opinions on mass dfw stocking program

[ma_fisherman]

taxid- your right about the trend away from brookies in this state....and not just from the 70's but from even more recently.  I am 32 and can remember when i was in middle and high school (mid to late 90's) they were still stocking brookies in horn pond.  Not anymore.  I know some of the rivers use to get brookies like the shawsheen and ipswich which im pretty sure are all rainbows now and have they even put brookies in walden the last couple yrs??  they might have but all i see is rainbows in early spring/browns in late spring/rainbows again in fall.  I certainly do miss catching the occasionaly brookie but i do think the reason for the switch to rainbows is very logical.  1st of all many of the waters they were stocking the brookies into were not suitable for brookies at all (such as horn pond).  they are probably not very suitable for rainbows either to tell u the truth but the rainbows are a bit heartier and tolerant of water a few degrees warmer if i am correct.  2nd is the fact that rainbows are much better for raising in a hatchery.  They reach a large size very quickly....reproduce more prodigious then other trout breeds.....and are a trout specie that will take almost any bait under the proper conditions from insects and worms to shiners...to marshmallows, pb, and salmon eggs, and even a large array of artificials.  They also feed all day commonly unlike some trout species (i.e. brown trout who prefer to feed at dusk or after), and are less wary then a species like brown.  This makes them a more reasonable fish to target for the everyday joe six pack and his 12 yr old son.

all- several mentioned the fact that mass stocks larger fish then nh on the whole.  i have noticed this to be absolutely true and i did commend ma for having the nice sized rainbows.  I was down walden this week and saw many 14 " + trout pulled out.  Nh stocks those 8-10 in brookies everywhere by the bucketfuls. Even where they do stock rainbows they do not come close to the quality of our rainbows....in size or in beauty (call me crazy but the ma rainbows have more color and just look like a nicer rainbow).  However, in other areas of stocking programs ma is woefully behind nh. imo. take care and thanks for sharing all the thoughts.

[djb]

There have been changes made over time, some good, others not so good. The larger, more numerous rainbows being stocked in the lakes are good, the dropping of smaller brooks that used to get brook trout is not so good. Up until very recently, I fished several brooks for the brookies that were stocked there, but DFW has, without suitable explanation, stopped stocking  them. I used to ride my bicycle to some of these brooks in the late 60's and early 70's thats how far back my history goes with them. I actually am fishing less in Massachusetts because of this reduction of brook trout stocking and spend much more time fishing in Vermont and New Hampshire. I have even purchased a Rhode Island license because of the changes to the stocking program. I miss that brook fishing and the brookies that were put there. Many of these brooks have enough cold water to carry fish through July and August and I would regularly catch a 13-15 incher that had grown over the season. These were as close to "trophy" brook trout as you would get here. Now that part of the program is largely a thing of the past for me. The novelty of the tiger trout is a good thing, but they are hard to grow and will probably remain as a small portion of the program. The Atlantic salmon are surplus fish that could stop tomorrow and while I've caught a few while ice fishing, I much prefer catching real landlocks in Quabbin, Memphremagog, Seymour, Winnebesaukee, etc...
As far as pike here in Massachusetts, I'm all for it in certain watersheds. The largest hurdles to be overcome starting a pike program are the high start-up costs and the smaller supporting fisherman base. I've been told that, except for the Connecticut River, the water chemistry is wrong for walleyes, which explains why there's no program for them, even though there's little doubt that they would be as popular as pike with some fishermen.
The trout program overall is very popular with fishermen and as such, will continue to receive a lot of attention. Even though I'm disapointed in the loss of parts of the program, overall it is well run and one of DFW's most popular programs.

[ma_fisherman]

djb- some interesting points you make.  You mentioned that you have heard that aside from the connecticut river the water chemistry in ma is not suitable for walleye.  I have heard this exact same thing.  I couldnt remember what it was about the water chemistry (ph perhaps??) but hearing this had made sense to me because i could think of no good reason that we do not see walleyes in any of our waterbodies.  Certainly the climate here is not that much different then many of the regions that do have walleye.  I mentioned this theory about unsuitable water chemistry for the walleye on another forum i am a member of and several of the guys told me that was nonsense.  The lone reason was that ma considered the species invasive and although they have stocked other invasive species (n pike and muskie) the fear with walleye was that being in the perch family they could succesfully reproduce and populate a water body rapidly while the pike species seem to not thrive here and the dfw has the ability to control those populations.  Im not sure where the truth lie....probably in the middle somewhere but i do believe water chemistry or something of the sort has played a role.  Anyone that has any knowledge on this please share......are the waterbodies in this state suitable in terms of water chemistry for walleye??

The other point you make is about brook trout and the stocking of ma brooks/streams or should i say recent lack of stocking.  Although i share your disappointment at the lack of good stream fishing for brookies in this state i have to say that i understand why it does not exist here.  I, like you, go elsewhere in new england to go stream fishing for brookies.  I love to go to nh white mountains (pemi river, mad river) and the north woods (androscroggin river), as well as numerous smaller brooks and river in southern nh and the lakes region.  I love how nh throws brookies in every little brook and stream it seems.  Whenever i cross a bridge or little culvert 3 to 1 at least theres some nice brookies hiding down there.  The thing is, i, unlike you do not believe we have the brooks and streams to accomdate such stockings.  I was not around in the 50's and 60's so i cant speak to how things were then but there have been a lot of changes since then.  I also cannot speak towards the central or western part of the state but as far as the eastarn part of the state (boston metro, boston suburbs, 495 and in) i just do not think we have the streams you are talking about.  Christ, they put rainbows in the ipswich and shawsheen down in wilmington and tewksbury and i can barely believe they stock those rivers.....let alone any local brooks or streams.  I know stony brook in weston is still stocked and i think cherry brook also. river meadow brook in chelmsford is stocked and they use to stock beaver brook in watertown i believe.  But how many small streams or brooks in this part of the state you know of that are suitable for trout and also have legal public access to fish??  i may be missing the boat here and only thinking in terms of my small neck of the woods so i'll be interested to hear some of your thoughts on specific brooks/streams you would like to see get trout still.

[fishlessman]

mass puts in good sized bows an alot of them, i would prefer a larger percent were browns on some lakes as they are a little harder to catch and last longer in the lake. would also like to see crappie in more ponds. on the trout stockings, alot of small ponds have access thats not as  public, would like to see the stockings made in places other than the public beach were the trout get slaughtered with power bait the first couple weeks after stocking or maybe a way to release the fish across a small lake instead of one specific area, i know people would show up with boats  to release fish across the lake instead of just in the slaughter zone.

[djb]

ma fisherman- Many of the brooks that I'm speaking about will indeed hold fish. Some of the reasons I've been told as to why these brooks have been dropped from the list include coldwater habitat degradation by beavers, a presence of a native brook  trout population, significant habitat change (i.e.: subdevelopments, golf course etc..). With the dizzying array of environmental laws, orders and conditions a builder must face today that factor has been reduced, although some suburban dwellers don't understand why you are fishing in that little brook that flows behind their house. DWF has been conducting stream surveys for years and the biologists know where the native trout are. These brooks were dropped off the stocking list years ago to reduce the pressure on the natives. Many of the brooks I am referring to being dropped recently have adequate cold water conditions but little suitable spawning habitat;  in other words, adult trout will live there but are unable to be self-sustaining.  Coldwater habitat damage by beavers is a recent problem that has accellerated greatly because of the trapping ban. While I am familiar with places that have been improved by the presence of beavers, in far more situations they have fragmented the coldwater habitat with their dams and increased water temperatures to levels intolerable to cold water dependent species, including trout. Until there is a return to a science based beaver management program expect this to increase.  
I believe that many of these brooks were dropped due to cost factors. I know that brookies (and browns) are more costly to raise than rainbows and by reducing the number of them and directing these newly available resources towards the easier and faster growing rainbows it is possible to to keep a lid on the ever-increasing costs of doing just about anything in this day and age.  

[taxid]

taxid- your right about the trend away from brookies in this state....and not just from the 70's but from even more recently.  I am 32 and can remember when i was in middle and high school (mid to late 90's) they were still stocking brookies in horn pond.  Not anymore.  I know some of the rivers use to get brookies like the shawsheen and ipswich which im pretty sure are all rainbows now and have they even put brookies in walden the last couple yrs??  they might have but all i see is rainbows in early spring/browns in late spring/rainbows again in fall.  I certainly do miss catching the occasionaly brookie but i do think the reason for the switch to rainbows is very logical.  1st of all many of the waters they were stocking the brookies into were not suitable for brookies at all (such as horn pond).  they are probably not very suitable for rainbows either to tell u the truth but the rainbows are a bit heartier and tolerant of water a few degrees warmer if i am correct.  2nd is the fact that rainbows are much better for raising in a hatchery.  They reach a large size very quickly....reproduce more prodigious then other trout breeds.....and are a trout specie that will take almost any bait under the proper conditions from insects and worms to shiners...to marshmallows, pb, and salmon eggs, and even a large array of artificials.  They also feed all day commonly unlike some trout species (i.e. brown trout who prefer to feed at dusk or after), and are less wary then a species like brown.  This makes them a more reasonable fish to target for the everyday joe six pack and his 12 yr old son.

all- several mentioned the fact that mass stocks larger fish then nh on the whole.  i have noticed this to be absolutely true and i did commend ma for having the nice sized rainbows.  I was down walden this week and saw many 14 " + trout pulled out.  Nh stocks those 8-10 in brookies everywhere by the bucketfuls. Even where they do stock rainbows they do not come close to the quality of our rainbows....in size or in beauty (call me crazy but the ma rainbows have more color and just look like a nicer rainbow).  However, in other areas of stocking programs ma is woefully behind nh. imo. take care and thanks for sharing all the thoughts.

Rainbows do give a state a better bang for the buck compared to browns and rainbows for the reasons you gave.  Brooks are more easily stressed and disease prone but on the other hand brooks handle lower PH water better than rainbows which is a problem in some of your waters.  However much of your trout program is put and take so cost is a more important issue than survival.

Another possible reason for rainbows is some states are going to ordering eggs from suppliers such as Trout Lodge (a western supplier that just produces eggs) as it precludes the use of broodstock subsequently reducing labor and health testing costs. I have no idea, however, if Mass is doing that. Those sterile all female bows from the eggs do grow a little faster than even ungenetically altered bows-- at least in the raceway.

There also seems to be a push to protect native fish in many states, and perhaps Mass has backed off on planting brooks to offset any interbreeding with the few wild stocks you have?

I know of a small lake in your state where brooks used to reproduce over a spring seep.

(Note: This seems to be backed up by the previous post I read after posting this)  


One issue I have with your trout program is the cost of a fishing license. It's at least triple what it is in my state although we have a separate "trout stamp" where you can opt in or out of paying for the trout if you don't fish for them.  I have my doubts if you're getting what you're paying for in your state. Just seems rather high for such a small state. Perhaps other agencies are dipping into the fund?

[taxid]

mass puts in good sized bows an alot of them, i would prefer a larger percent were browns on some lakes as they are a little harder to catch and last longer in the lake.

My state no longer plants browns except in Lake Michigan, but my own DNR's studies show the browns live longer and provide a better return weight wise than the rainbows. It's up to the feds to supply Lake Michigan and private trout groups to plant browns in other waters.

[Basstracker]

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.

couldn't have said it better myself lol.

[FishingNewEngland]

couldn't have said it better myself lol.

I know. The trout guys get all up in arms when someone mentions pike. I don't understand why the state can't cater to more than just the trout guys.

[LENZ]

pike love trout.....

burp

[FishingNewEngland]

pike love trout.....

burp

Yep, but the state won't allow us to use them for bait.

[Basstracker]

pike love trout.....

burp

Around here the places that hold pike have no trout haha.

[taxid]

pike love trout.....

burp

 

Absolutely. Our state record pike burped up a 20 inch rainbow. Pike was 48 1/2 inches and over 30 lbs.

Even your bass if large enough will prefer a stupid raceway raised trout over a spiny rayed fish.

[taxid]

Around here the places that hold pike have no trout haha.

Here the lakes that have the biggest pike are stocked with trout. 

[ebour]

I know somewhere where they have trout and pike. Actually two spots. I am sure a trout swimbait should work