rick rysemus
New member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3
If there was a possiblity to Plant kokanee in Lake Stevens would the Sportsman step up to finance it? With the hopes / plans to turn Lake Stevens into a Trophy Kokanee Lake.
Planting kokanee in Lake Stevens?
- Thread starter rick rysemus
- Start date
Help Support Kokanee Fishing Forums:
rick rysemus
New member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3
By chance do you have info to back this up? Trout yes. kokanee??? A person that is involved with Trout planting did not say that kokanee are planted along with trout so....That's why I posted the question.
He also thought this would be a great idea, if we could get approval and financing.
He also thought this would be a great idea, if we could get approval and financing.
Rotten Chum
New member
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 4
Stevens typically gets about 100,000 fry a year...
Smalma
Well-known member
Rick -
See -
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01178/wdfw01178.pdf
The last couple of years there as be a little less than 150,000 kokanee fry planted in annually in Stevens.
To the question of "trophy kokanee" the answer is not so much a planting the fish or the stock of fish planted but the density of the fish put in the lake. In the past the kokanee were significantly larger than now with 2 # fish reasonably common. I have personally seen kokanee in excess of 4 pounds in the lake - the largest that I ever saw was a spawner that was 23 3/4 inches long. The lake clearly has the potential to grow "trophy" kokanee. In fact during the mid-1980s the State even experimented with triploid (sterile) kokanee in Stevens in an effort to produce even larger fish; however those fish failed to survive to reach any size.
However to grow such fish there would have to be a reduction in the numbers of fish planted annually. Even then there would be some variation in the size of the fish as there is some natural reproduction of kokanee in couple of the small inlets.
Cutting the number planted in say half and returning to the old 5 fish bag limit would result in a significant increase in the size of the fish however the fishing would be much more difficult. With a lower abundance the top rods still could potentially catch the limit in an outing but the average angler would struggle for just a fish or two. Now a 10 fish limit might weigth 7 to 8 #s (some years 10# or so) with a reduction in numbers planted a limit might be weight the same with 1/2 the fish.
Ending the operation of the aerator would also likely lead to incresed "blooms" driving faster growth of the kokanee in the lake. However much of the bloom would include noxious blue-green algae. The result is the lake visibility would drop, in the summer the lake would stink from the algae and the table quality of the kokanee would drop significantly - especially during the warm water period (say from mid June on).
In short lake management can be a tricky business.
BTW -
Much of the State's kokanee program remains at risk due to impacts on the Whatcom stock from a potential salmon recovery action on the middle Fork of the Nooksack. There has been a discussion of that issue on this site and search would yield more specific details.
Tight lines
Curt
See -
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01178/wdfw01178.pdf
The last couple of years there as be a little less than 150,000 kokanee fry planted in annually in Stevens.
To the question of "trophy kokanee" the answer is not so much a planting the fish or the stock of fish planted but the density of the fish put in the lake. In the past the kokanee were significantly larger than now with 2 # fish reasonably common. I have personally seen kokanee in excess of 4 pounds in the lake - the largest that I ever saw was a spawner that was 23 3/4 inches long. The lake clearly has the potential to grow "trophy" kokanee. In fact during the mid-1980s the State even experimented with triploid (sterile) kokanee in Stevens in an effort to produce even larger fish; however those fish failed to survive to reach any size.
However to grow such fish there would have to be a reduction in the numbers of fish planted annually. Even then there would be some variation in the size of the fish as there is some natural reproduction of kokanee in couple of the small inlets.
Cutting the number planted in say half and returning to the old 5 fish bag limit would result in a significant increase in the size of the fish however the fishing would be much more difficult. With a lower abundance the top rods still could potentially catch the limit in an outing but the average angler would struggle for just a fish or two. Now a 10 fish limit might weigth 7 to 8 #s (some years 10# or so) with a reduction in numbers planted a limit might be weight the same with 1/2 the fish.
Ending the operation of the aerator would also likely lead to incresed "blooms" driving faster growth of the kokanee in the lake. However much of the bloom would include noxious blue-green algae. The result is the lake visibility would drop, in the summer the lake would stink from the algae and the table quality of the kokanee would drop significantly - especially during the warm water period (say from mid June on).
In short lake management can be a tricky business.
BTW -
Much of the State's kokanee program remains at risk due to impacts on the Whatcom stock from a potential salmon recovery action on the middle Fork of the Nooksack. There has been a discussion of that issue on this site and search would yield more specific details.
Tight lines
Curt
rick rysemus
New member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3
Thanks Curt. That was an education. Based on the Plant PDF link it doesn't look like theres anything larger then Fry to be planted in any lake. Is that the case?
I now realize that my first post should have been about Planting 8-12" or the 14" range fish. If they exist.
Thanks again Rick
I now realize that my first post should have been about Planting 8-12" or the 14" range fish. If they exist.
Thanks again Rick
Smalma
Well-known member
Rick -
Rainbow trout and kokanee are two very different critters and planting strategies for the two species vary considerably - more about that later.
As you have discovered the common planting strategy for release kokanee in the various lakes is to plant fry. Further those fry plants are typically divided into 3 approaches. The first is to plant the fish shortly after hatching (typcially in April/May); these fish are usually only an 1 inch or so long. The second is to hold the fish for a couple months until they are a larger size and a food source for the fish is more assured; these fish are a little larger (maybe a couple inches). Finally the third is to release them in the hatchery until the fall when the water temperature begins cooling down; these fish are typically in the 3 inch range.
There are some real trade offs in the survival and cost in those strategies - the larger the fish the better they survive and the more they cost to raise. Those later plants are usually the option of choice if there are spring survival issues or the total number of fry available is limiting.
The most obvious difference between the trout and the kokanee of course the kokanee being a salmon (landlocked sockeye) die shortly after spawning. But a more important difference that is rarely recognized is that the kokanee for some reason usually do not enter the recreational fishery to any large degree until their final year of life. Those Stevens fish are typically spawn as three year olds. This of course means that there are three full year classes of fish in the late at any time with only the oldest year class entering the fishery. The other trout usually enter the fishery as some as they approach a 6 inch age class. In addition the quicker the kokanee grow the earlier they mature. For example those small kokanee in say Lake Whatcom are typically 4 to 6 years old (average nearly 5) when they spawn - even though smaller much older than the Stevens fish.
To raise kokanee to the size you suggest would be both expense and likely not to produce much larger fish. Raising those fish in the hatchery likely would accelerate the maturation rate of the fish - many would likely spawn the fall following being released and in doing so they would not achieve the kind of grow that you would hope -the grow rate of those maturing fish really slows down during the last summer before spawning. The one up side of that approach would be fewer years classes of fish in the lake.
The kokanee are expensive to rear in a hatchery for a couple reasons. The larger the fish the more time and food it takes to produce the desired size. In addition because kokanee are essentially zooplankton feeders they tend to be a difficult fish to raise in the hatchery with higher mortalities than say rainbows.
The best trophy kokanee lakes tend to be large body of waters that have high productivity and low densities of kokanee. MOre than one kokanee fishery has been ruined by managers attempting to take short cuts to producing trophy fisheres - the most famous example has been the introduction of mysid shrimp as a potential food source.
Tight lines
Curt
Rainbow trout and kokanee are two very different critters and planting strategies for the two species vary considerably - more about that later.
As you have discovered the common planting strategy for release kokanee in the various lakes is to plant fry. Further those fry plants are typically divided into 3 approaches. The first is to plant the fish shortly after hatching (typcially in April/May); these fish are usually only an 1 inch or so long. The second is to hold the fish for a couple months until they are a larger size and a food source for the fish is more assured; these fish are a little larger (maybe a couple inches). Finally the third is to release them in the hatchery until the fall when the water temperature begins cooling down; these fish are typically in the 3 inch range.
There are some real trade offs in the survival and cost in those strategies - the larger the fish the better they survive and the more they cost to raise. Those later plants are usually the option of choice if there are spring survival issues or the total number of fry available is limiting.
The most obvious difference between the trout and the kokanee of course the kokanee being a salmon (landlocked sockeye) die shortly after spawning. But a more important difference that is rarely recognized is that the kokanee for some reason usually do not enter the recreational fishery to any large degree until their final year of life. Those Stevens fish are typically spawn as three year olds. This of course means that there are three full year classes of fish in the late at any time with only the oldest year class entering the fishery. The other trout usually enter the fishery as some as they approach a 6 inch age class. In addition the quicker the kokanee grow the earlier they mature. For example those small kokanee in say Lake Whatcom are typically 4 to 6 years old (average nearly 5) when they spawn - even though smaller much older than the Stevens fish.
To raise kokanee to the size you suggest would be both expense and likely not to produce much larger fish. Raising those fish in the hatchery likely would accelerate the maturation rate of the fish - many would likely spawn the fall following being released and in doing so they would not achieve the kind of grow that you would hope -the grow rate of those maturing fish really slows down during the last summer before spawning. The one up side of that approach would be fewer years classes of fish in the lake.
The kokanee are expensive to rear in a hatchery for a couple reasons. The larger the fish the more time and food it takes to produce the desired size. In addition because kokanee are essentially zooplankton feeders they tend to be a difficult fish to raise in the hatchery with higher mortalities than say rainbows.
The best trophy kokanee lakes tend to be large body of waters that have high productivity and low densities of kokanee. MOre than one kokanee fishery has been ruined by managers attempting to take short cuts to producing trophy fisheres - the most famous example has been the introduction of mysid shrimp as a potential food source.
Tight lines
Curt
trouthntr59
New member
I think the first step in improving this and all the fry plant programs is this state to wake up and legalize the hunting of cormorants.
Other states have taken this step to control their population and had immediate positive results to their fisheries and planting projects. Good luck getting out legislature to do the right thing though. We cant even get a bill passed to get the derelict fishing nets monitored and out of the Puget Sound.
I will keep hoping though maybe someday...
Other states have taken this step to control their population and had immediate positive results to their fisheries and planting projects. Good luck getting out legislature to do the right thing though. We cant even get a bill passed to get the derelict fishing nets monitored and out of the Puget Sound.
I will keep hoping though maybe someday...
SculpinKing
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 26
Hopefully nobody minds me me bumping this thread from the dead, but I stumbled on it tonight while looking for some related information and just had to bring it to the top. Lake Stevens is my home lake so the historical information Curt provided was especially interesting, but the stocking information was incredibly interesting as well. Thanks for the posts!
