Dams V Rivers

[Finnie]

Hi All,

Out of interest, what are everyones opinions on where freshwater fishing stocking effort goes? A couple of years back I had a look through the stocking efforts of NSW Fisheries and noted that around 95% of fish stocked were introduced spp. such as trout etc., and that the great majority (again around 90% from memory) were stocked into impoundments.

To my mind that creates a couple of issues. (1) Granted the stocking was a response to fishing licence moneys, and aimed at recreational fishers, and trout in impoundments is one of the easier ways to satisfy this demand; but should we be moving towards stocking more natives? and (2) Should we also be placing more emphasis on stocking natural waterways like our rivers, streams and our natural lakes in the future.

Again, this is an observation made a couple of years ago, and things may have changed. But, after I had a good careful look it appeared as though the entire stocking program had a "keep 'em happy" aim, rather than a longer term vision. Just a random thought, any comments appreciated.

Cheers,
Finnie

[DavidR]

Hi Finnie,
I think you were spot on with past fish stocking activities of many state departments. The agenda was very much focussed on getting maximum benifits for the fisher, without seriously considering the long term ecological outcomes. I think things are changing though. Most stocking activities that I'm aware of (in QLD at least) have taken on board the issue of stocking non-native species and also the other important consideration of translocating natives to systems not within their natural range. I think stocking activities have come a long way from the past with tighter controls of non-natives and translocations but there is still a lack of knowledge on what the effects of stocking natural waterways or man made impoundments can have.
My take on the issue of directing stocking effort toward putting fish into natural systems basically revolves around the concept that if there is a major ecological imbalance created such as the construction of dams/weirs or the destruction of fish habitat, that will reduce the natural recruitment of a species than maybe it is a good thing. I think we need to tred much more carefully though when considering stocking fish into natural systems as we could inadvertently create a major imbalance that could affect another species.
With the level of past effort being concentrated primarily into impoundments it would be good to learn from these relatively controlled conditions first before steaming ahead in a new direction?
David

[Fitzy]

I think the evolution of fish stocking is on -going. New species, new locations, more funds etc etc are only a bonus for anglers & the fishing/tackle/chandlery/boating industry (pity that many wont support fish stocking initiatives, congrats to those that do)
I believe that wild rivers should only ever be stocked as a last resort. The threat of an altered gene pool & disease is a very real one if hatchery bred fish are introduced into a wild, healthy fish population. If a fish is in decline in any one river, then stocking more fish wont help, the reasons for the fish decline need to be addressed & fixed.
In the case of impoundments, the dams can't be torn down so stocking IS the last resort.
Even stocking of dams now is not as easy as it once was. Permits, food sources, approval via umpteen committees, native titles etc etc. Even the greens are making it hard to stock a native fish in a native system as they claim that there could be an impact. When questioned "what impact" the answer is commonly "we're not sure". This precautionary principle get bantied about far too much these days. Why then wasn't the precautionary principle applied when they put a few million tonnes of rock & concrete across a perfect river?
The main reasons for fish stocking are:
- to create, develope, manage and maintain a recreational fishery where none existed before due to the construction of dams/weirs.
- to offset angling pressure upon salt water fisheries.
- to protect a species from extinction eg Mary River Cod. Another good one for help would be Macquarrie Perch.

That's my slant on it. Could rattle on forever.


Cheers,

Fitzy..

[Chuong]

Fish from stocked impoundments do also make their way into rivers below them.

[Finnie]

Although the Precautionary Principle may seem a pain in the arse at times, it is a step away from going ahead with development or projects (which may include fish stocking programs) without first having a good idea of what the impact may be. The problem with it of course is that gaining scientific knowledge of what might happen may take years of research that due to the complexity of interactions present in nature, may make it impossible to make a broad conclusion across systems. What this means is that scientists will be advising caution each and every time a development takes place........which leads to lots of paperwork, a careful and complete written proposal on what is being done, and then perhaps even an expert panel to decide what impacts are likely in a particular system.

Seems like a great deal of effort to go to, but certainly it is a better to be safe than sorry.

On the other hand, I think that as the people supplying funding for a lot of fish stocking we stand in an excellent position to provide some strategic environmental direction. I don't think anyone would argue that stocking mature Murray Cod into rivers such as the Lachlan (NSW) would not be a good thing. Ignoring for the moment impacts upon the local genetic pool (sidestepped by getting broodstock from the river being stocked), predation on juvenile carp is a good thing, gains in sportfishing potential has a lot of benefits, and perhaps even more abstract gains (such as top-down consumer pressure reducing blue-green algal blooms) probably make the idea of placing more emphasis on stocking rivers a good idea.

Cheers,
Finnie

[sizzle]

So what's the point of stocking a dam? So some egotistical fisherman can catch a fish take a pic and let it go? Golden and silver perch are not native to the Brisbane river system, taste like crap out of a sludgy dam. So can any one tell me why the hell I should buy a permit for that? Why torture a fish, just for a photo or a good story? I only catch a few to eat, and don't torment them unneccessarily. It's a little leisure and tucker for me, not a living.

[Finnie]

Ahhhh, the old "fishing for sport" as opposed to the "fishing for a feed" argument. I hear this a lot around the traps; that there is a higher moral ground to be had by people who only fish to feed themselves as opposed to fishing for sport. There seems to be some moral objection by a proportion of society to gaining pleasure by catching fish. Myself, I don't believe this particular peice of moral ground is any higher than mine, and I can assure you that I don't 'torture' fish.

By my thinking though, I fish for a range of reasons, and most of these can be directly compared to other sports. I fish to get out in nature, just like bushwalkers do. I fish because it is a challenge, just like playing golf. I fish because it bonds friends together in a stronger fashion...something that can only happen when people have worked together to reach a goal, like most team sports. I suspect that even people who "fish to feed themselves" gain all of these things as well. Why else would they spend so much time and money getting a feed that can be brought in the shops much more easily?

I guess the short version to your question of "why the hell stock dams in the first place" is: "because it provides an extra social and economic benefit from a peice of infrastructure primarily built for water supply"......and the even shorter answer would be "because it's heaps of fun".

Cheers,
Finnie

[Gazza]

Ahhhh, the old "fishing for sport" as opposed to the "fishing for a feed" argument. I hear this a lot around the traps; that there is a higher moral ground to be had by people who only fish to feed themselves as opposed to fishing for sport. There seems to be some moral objection by a proportion of society to gaining pleasure by catching fish. Myself, I don't believe this particular peice of moral ground is any higher than mine, and I can assure you that I don't 'torture' fish.

By my thinking though, I fish for a range of reasons, and most of these can be directly compared to other sports. I fish to get out in nature, just like bushwalkers do. I fish because it is a challenge, just like playing golf. I fish because it bonds friends together in a stronger fashion...something that can only happen when people have worked together to reach a goal, like most team sports. I suspect that even people who "fish to feed themselves" gain all of these things as well. Why else would they spend so much time and money getting a feed that can be brought in the shops much more easily?

I guess the short version to your question of "why the hell stock dams in the first place" is: "because it provides an extra social and economic benefit from a peice of infrastructure primarily built for water supply"......and the even shorter answer would be "because it's heaps of fun".

Cheers,
Finnie

Hi Finnie , A few good points you made there mate.
We're all on the same side of the boat after all, just one mob yells "Let 'im go...." and the other mob yells "Keep 'im, we eat fish tonight..."

I liked your suggestion in another post to breed MC fingerlings from 'River' stock , to then be released to grow in the same "Native" area, as compared to an impoundment.

Just my POV , I think the river/dam stocking percentage (of available fingerlings) should swing a little more in the rivers favour.

Now , I know zero/zip/zilch about the complexities and requirements of testing Murray Cod for "suitability" in breeding or how it is done.

A possibly BARBARIC statement follows, and I'm sure some will faint and possibly throwup

"Is it possible to cool/freeze?/store in an Esky" , any Melts / Roe of fish taken, whatever reason......

Put them in a Ziplock ??? bag with catch details and location, and then send them to a specific e.g. MC Stocking Group to build a 'bank' of suitable stock ,initially for the river it was "Native" in, but if plenty is available from this area ,this would go to impoundments??........

If it can in fact be done, o.k. ???
(I don't believe many RecFishos would go to the trouble generally , but it may give a 'boost' to numbers over the years , as initial stocks were 'stored'......for all RecFishos.

Regards
Gazza

[Simon]

lots of good debate etc. happening here. love it. my only thing with stocking rivers other than what has already been said is that if the reasons for the initial loses declines in particular or all fish species in a river isn't fixed then the total number of fish the system can support is capped and putting more in will just add more pressure to the system and could do more damage to it other than the waste of time and money putting fish into the river to have them die very soon after anyway. therefore they would be better off in a dam


Simon.