C & R Trout Season??

[Mike Clifford]

As if it wasn't bad enough that somebody decided years ago to introduce trout into the Kankakee River system, now those same people decided that it would be a good idea to DOUBLE the number. For what purpose? To turn Rock Creek into a "playground" of sorts for fly anglers.
Which brings to mind a few questions on my part.

1) Where is the science behind this? Is anybody doing studies to see what effect this has on the NATIVE populations of fish in this system?
2) Who is policing the circus created by all this madness? Are there extra IDNR staff checking licenses and keeping an eye out for poaching violations?
3) Who, exactly, decided this is a good idea? Do they have a contact number?

http://www.daily-journal.com/news/local/catch-release-trout-fishing-introduced/article_39ad83d4-df90-5bb3-a42a-06a5a92ce6e3.html

[ronk]

The likely reason for c& r is to extend the fishery for a longer period. Typically the trout are caught out in a week or so otherwise. I doubt there'd be any detrimental affect. Summer water temps will kill off all the remaining trout.As a smallie guy I'm more concerned about stocking walleye which do presumably compete with smb into the Kank.Speaking of poachers if there were a gw stationed at the Wilmington dam where illegal catches are frequent scores of smb would be saved every year.

[Norm M]

After talking to the biologists every year since the walleye stocking program began, they aren't worried about it affecting the smallmouth fishery from what they see in their surveys.

 

Extra folks looking for poaching, that will be the day. I ran into some of the biologists recently, each had a new IDNR hat, first new gear I've seen them get in years. No money for more eyes on the water. I had not heard the number of trout stocked was increased but I do know from the signs posted that a C & R season for flyfishing only is allowed for two weeks prior to the scheduled trout opener.

I guess at least they sprung for some new signs.

[Mike Clifford]

I think it's a great program.....for lakes and ponds.
I've heard all of the usual rhetoric about the trout dying, all being caught by anglers......yada yada.
What I have also seen are studies done in other states that claim it's just not a good idea to put non-native trout into smallmouth streams.
OR the other way around!

This is a joke and it needs to cease. Period.

[ronk]

Mike

Methinks you're overreacting.

[Terry Dodge]

I agree with Mike. I never did understand the reasoning behind the program.

Just seems dumb to me.

[ronk]

Re the smb vs trout non native introduction issue there's no harm doing so on a temporary basis provided the nons are unable to establish permanency. As they've done in eastern trout streams smallies can. Rainbows can't.More adaptable brown trout might but only 'bows are ever stocked.So no harm no foul.And there'll be plenty trout for the spin guys once the 2 week ff only c& r is done.

[Jonn Graham]

If they stock the trout small enough, some big, hungry smallies up from the Kank will dine on those trout.

[Steve S.]

My Dad caught a rainbow way upstream on Rock Creek, up around the scout camp, which is above the falls. That was many, many years ago, when I was a boy. I always wondered if it was stocked but I assumed so.

[Mike Clifford]

Overreacting, my ass Ron.

At NO time is it ever acceptable to introduce non-native species of fish into ANY river system. For ANY reason.
Ever.
I strongly disagree with anybody that FINDS a reason to do so and then argues the merits where no merits exist.
It needs to stop, and as long as I have a conservation bone in my body, I'll fight to see that it does.
End of discussion from my point of view. Talk amongst yourselves all you like. My mind was made up regarding this a long time ago.

[Rob G]

Mike, I very much agree with you in that by now, surely we should know to leave well enough alone but I also agree with Ron in that if they are going to be stupid, at least they picked the right fish that can't ever adapt to the Kankakee and become a problem.

[ronk]

Mike
I'm sorry but nowhere in your rants have you specified what harm to the Kank fishery is being done.That goes for you other guys as well.

[Terry Dodge]

Mike

I'm sorry but nowhere in your rants have you specified what harm to the Kank fishery is being done.That goes for you other guys as well.

 

 

I guess that would be me.

If you would please think back to the summer of 2011 during IDNR's steam sampling of the north branch of the Kishwaukee River.

Furunculosis > http://aqua.merck-animal-health.com/diseases/furunculosis/productadditional_127_113308.aspx

During the sampling it was discovered that ALL the smallmouth all had boils on their skin which was some kind of bacterial disease most commonly

found with salmon and trout species. It would be hard to prove, but I do believe that the the stocked tout for this particular year were carriers of the disease.

​Read more on the discussion here > http://illinoissmallmouthalliance.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=8288 (Paul T makes an interesting point.)

 

If this out break were the cause of an infected trout class, then I think another thing to think about is.... Can carelessness on behalf of the IDNR during the stocking season create problems?

 

The whole thing is just silly.

 

Any "other guys" like to chime in.

[Rob G]

Thanks Terry for the heads up. Now if that is true and a disease of this nature can be communicated between species then obviously a no-brainer not to stock but this should be easily evaluated in the lab and surprised someone wanting to earn their PhD didn't take this on for their thesis if it had not already been researched and confirmed.

[ronk]

It's gratifying to see that Terry actually offered a reason for his opinion.Almost everything has some risk.Consider that trout have been stocked in countless lakes & streams thruout not only our country but the world for generations w/o ill affect.

[Mike Clifford]

Consider that trout have been stocked in countless lakes & streams thruout not only our country but the world for generations w/o ill affect.

I wasn't aware there were studies on this, though I've been searching for a very long time to find them.

If you have anything, by all means share it and I'll keep an open mind.

The only study I ever found was done in some OK streams.

It's really long, but to paraphrase their findings....

 

 

 

What is the problem with stocking trout in Spring Creek?

1. Trout stocking is most appropriate in waters where they are native, or in waters that have been greatly modified from their natural states, such as cool tail-waters below deep reservoirs, where the native fish have been eliminated. Spring Creek has not undergone major modifications and maintains, in fact, much of its natural character. Several non sport fish species maintain populations in Spring Creek.

2. Trout stocking is not appropriate in waters where the main objectives include conservation and restoration of natural states. Scientists have documented that Spring Creek possesses high water quality and a high diversion of natural species. Many landowners in the Spring Creek watershed and other Oklahoma value the creek’s natural qualities and have invested in their conservation and restoration. Trout are not native to the Spring Creek ecosystem. When stocked into Spring Creek, they prey and occupy space that would otherwise be available for native species. Stocking occurs abruptly and upsets the natural balance that has been approached over time by the creek’s resident populations. Trout move up and downstream from sites where they are stocked on Spring Creek; reaching places where they conflict with the management objectives of landowners regarding the creeks natural attributes.

 

 

Are potential biological impacts of stockings being adequately evaluated?

Potential impacts are numerous and include direct effects on species that become the trout’s common prey, plus indirect effects on native species that shift their natural choices in food and habit. As stated above, Spring Creek is home to numerous species of animals and plants, including some that are rare and/or have limited distributions. The pre-stocking evaluations and post-stocking monitoring that have occurred in regard to Spring Creek have examined potential effects and have been deemed an inadequate basis for justifying future stockings. The “2004 and 2005 Impacts to Spring Creek from introductions of Rainbow Trout on Spring Creek” was limited to: Trout Distribution, Trout Catch and Harvest, Trout Diet & Body Condition, Water, Air and Soil Temperatures, Precipitation and Cooling Degree-days. There was no consideration of any biological aspects native to Spring Creek. This assessment as well as the Brush Creek Study concluded that “little conclusive evidence about possible long-term impacts from rainbow trout in Spring Creek. In addition, many believe the burden of future studies to support stocking applications should be borne by those who benefit from the stocking, which has not occurred.

Have non-native trout caused problems in other areas where they were stocked?

National Geographic (March 2005) includes Rainbow trout as one of the 100 worst invasive species in the world ( Trout Unlimited Policy opposes the introduction of non-native trout. The American Fisheries Society has published numerous research documents on non-native trout/fish introductions and site impacts classified into five broad categories: habitat alteration, trophic alteration, spatial alteration, gene pool deterioration, and introduction of diseases.

 

 

 

 

TULSA - Trout fishing will continue to be banned from a northeastern Oklahoma stream considered by conservationists as the state's last "pristine" Ozark stream, an appellate court has ruled.

The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals on Monday upheld a ruling by a district judge in February that officials violated state law when they allowed Spring Creek to be stocked with trout.

The case was brought by a coalition of landowners who objected to the state Department of Wildlife Conservation allowing private fishermen to stock the creek with trout, a species foreign to the area.

The landowners feared that the trout would crowd out native fish, triggering a domino effect in the stream's ecosystem.

"You just don't want to mess with a steam that is still in its pristine, natural state," said Charles Shipley, the Tulsa lawyer for the Spring Creek Conservation Coalition. "You just don't want to take a pristine stream and add something foreign to it, even something as usually unobjectionable as trout."

http://newsok.com/appeals-court-says-creek-to-stay-free-of-trout/article/2987875

From the large PDF file of the studies done.....

 

[tjtroester]

there have been studies of the effects, I assume, of the temporary introduction of trout in to our warm water fisheries. as I recall they were conducted by the university of Illinois around 20 yrs ago. I do not recall or probably never heard if the practices continued as result of those studies or without any regard to them. I assume the latter as the purpose of the program had nothing to do with creating a new natural resource and I doubt they were ever viewed as anything more than groceries to begin with. the idea of a study of the sort showing any new data or anything other that what you want to hear is unlikely anyway. fly fishing in reality has little to do with the subject as these are not wild fish or do they ever have time to adapt to the new environs outside the concrete run where they were raised; they do not respond well to the fly but to worms, corn or cigarette butts. trout are not native to the upper Midwest or east and when introduced they did displace the natives somewhat. I think probably due to a preference to the tourist buck. trout followed the british empire around the globe and were temporarily established in the most unlikely places. some after grabbing hold survive to this day. in the 20's there was a move to establish large mouth bass to some of the waters of the north within the habitat of brooktrout. the natives in this case were displaced, died off. the lmb flourish for a couple of years and then they didn't. some of those fisheries are dead to this day, no fish. they have been blasted, shocked and netted. nada. personally, I do not regard the trout stocking practice as a sporting activity but more a social activity so/for city slickers to go to "the woods" in a group for safety or without fear of loneliness. i think the state views it as a self supporting activity to write about in a brochure. the 2wks of fly fishing-only on the Kankakee I see as an inconvience created without informed input and sort of like telling me I cannot go hiking or fish my local river during shotgun weekends. timothy

[tjtroester]

terry, furunculosis is a variety of strep that is commonly all about us. some of the salmonoids are particularly suceptable to it but not exclusive to them. the fish Illinois stocks are tested repeatedly and specifically prior to placing. some of the rainbows are from a hatchery in southern Missouri and the requirements are more rigid for trout coming in from out of state. they have to be a pure strain and disease free. the testing is rigorous. I would bet the source of the infection was from another source other that these rainbow stockers; boots boats, coolers or something naturally occurring and we may see it again. I am for the boots, boats, cooler theory as the rainbows are required to be effectually sterile. I am not intending to make an issue of this but thot I might respond with my thots. timothy

[joshw]

This trout stocking isnt something new. It has gone on for many years and I haven't seen any effect to the river itself. If you know of some ill effect the trout have had on the smallmouths of the kankakee river system please post this info. I don't remember seeing this brought up in years past when the trout were dumped in rock creek??

[ronk]

I'd like to know what are the natives that those landowners on Spring Creek were so concerned about.Chubs,darters? My guess is their real concern had more to do with all the anglers that would soon be fishing "their" river if trout had been stocked.Try telling anglers in places like South America or New Zealand that those non-native rainbows & browns should never have been allowed introduction into their once "pristine" lakes & streams.Than get ready for an argument

tj

It's not true that hatchery trout won't take flies.Like most other fish they may be easier with live bait but they also take flies well.

[tjtroester]

ronk, I am not opposed to stocking trout for groceries or for fun. I was not finding fault with the global expansion of trout. I am all in favor of using the most difficult methods to catch fish in the name of sport. I do not accept that trout stocking in Illinois has been a fly fishing issue. most of these fish have been pursued by non fly casters and caught with corn, dough balls or worms. all in all, so what? I have seldom been found in the general area on the "faux opener". like I suggested, all this foofarah is for those more circus minded and herd oriented than myself. timothy

[Mike Clifford]

This trout stocking isnt something new. It has gone on for many years and I haven't seen any effect to the river itself. If you know of some ill effect the trout have had on the smallmouths of the kankakee river system please post this info. I don't remember seeing this brought up in years past when the trout were dumped in rock creek??

I used to bring it up every year. A biologist (that was an ISA officer at the time) and myself went to the opener one year just to take notes on the whole circus atmosphere. When we got there, the ISA sign and post had been yanked from the ground and thrown in the weeds nearby, the place was TRASHED and there was no sign of anybody checking anybody for anything.

I didn't just fall into this mindset overnight. It's been brewing for years.

I will say that every time I do bring it up, a few always shrug it off as no big deal.

 

[tjtroester]

mike , I agree with you that there has been much destruction and trash generated around the Illinois trout program. it gives me the shivers. it seems the general attitude of the few offenders I have approach is that it is their right; sort of a "manifest destiny" sort of thing, to hear them talk. timothy

[Mike Clifford]

Just did a little search and found that we were discussing this issue back in 2006.
The same people (myself included) hold the same opinions now as then.
I tried then to initiate discussions with the IDNR biologists and they ran from the issue.
Wanted no part of discussing any of it and refused to answer any questions.
Money talks.

[Norm M]

from a conversation I had years ago with an IDNR upper management person part of the purpose was to try and get more kids as well as their parents involved in fishing. Part of it was to sell more fishing licenses which could increase the % of Illinois' share of federal dollars from the excise taxes of outdoors goods . The plan was that the sale of extra licenses and trout stamps would make the stocking program a break even proposition. Whether it became a break even deal was something I never was able to find out .

 

Myself personally, I avoid the thing and go and pick up trash when it's over. I have fished that stretch in winter and early spring, never caught a smallmouth or a rock bass. I'm sure they pass the winter somewhere above the mini falls as I doubt the smallmouth jump the falls when they move up in the spring. The stretch below the falls to the mouth is pretty much devoid of smallmouth during the winter.

 

My son and I once were fishing over at the floating pier at Bird Park for largemouth when the trout had been stocked. He was using a Rapala DT-6 and I had a Bandit 200. We caught so many of the stocked trout, we lost count. From that experience I would have to say they will take lures.