Jump to content


Photo

Wild-bred Larval Pallid Sturgeon Found in Missouri River


7 replies to this topic

#1 mattknepley

mattknepley
  • NANFA Member
  • Smack-dab between the Savannah and the Saluda.

Posted 24 January 2015 - 04:45 PM

http://abcnews.go.co...ralded-28356625

Sorry about all the extra junk in the margins. E-"journalism"...
Matt Knepley
"No thanks, a third of a gopher would merely arouse my appetite..."

#2 Matt DeLaVega

Matt DeLaVega
  • Forum Staff
  • Ohio

Posted 24 January 2015 - 08:06 PM

I imagine that they simply cannot produce enough, but the stocking numbers are dismal. 1800 fish per year in the Missouri? 1800 fingerlings in a body of water that size does not even seem viable. I must be wrong. It must be doing better than it would seem, and the larval evidence surely means something. Maybe they had a mistake in the article, and they meant 25000 fish per year? That must be it. They cannot honestly be saying that 25000 fish over 12 years has made a significant difference.

The member formerly known as Skipjack


#3 Matt DeLaVega

Matt DeLaVega
  • Forum Staff
  • Ohio

Posted 24 January 2015 - 08:24 PM

I read this again, and again. They do say "in this section of the river". So do pallid sturgeon not travel far? If they have dumped 25000 in a single location over 12 years, and they don't move much, then it would seem like something good was happening. I just have to chuckle at 1800 fish in the Missouri per year, honestly 25,000 does not even seem like a large number. I read of a female pallid sturgeon carrying 170,000 eggs.

The member formerly known as Skipjack


#4 fundulus

fundulus
  • Global Moderator

Posted 25 January 2015 - 05:38 PM

It's hard to catch sturgeon in a river, they tend to hang on the bottom in deep, fast-flowing water that's really only accessed by commercial fishing gear..This could be especially true for trying to recover small sturgeons.
Bruce Stallsmith, Huntsville, Alabama, US of A

#5 Matt DeLaVega

Matt DeLaVega
  • Forum Staff
  • Ohio

Posted 25 January 2015 - 05:46 PM

I am still wondering about the stocking numbers though. It just does not sound right.

The member formerly known as Skipjack


#6 BenCantrell

BenCantrell
  • Moderator
  • San Diego, CA

Posted 25 January 2015 - 06:16 PM

Any effort is good.

#7 mattknepley

mattknepley
  • NANFA Member
  • Smack-dab between the Savannah and the Saluda.

Posted 25 January 2015 - 06:38 PM

Larval sturgeon sampling; I think Ben has his next microfishing assignment! I kinda wonder about the numbers, too, but I think Bruce has a good point.
Matt Knepley
"No thanks, a third of a gopher would merely arouse my appetite..."

#8 Matt DeLaVega

Matt DeLaVega
  • Forum Staff
  • Ohio

Posted 25 January 2015 - 07:40 PM

Any effort is good.


Unless the numbers stocked versus the cost and the survival rate make it not worth it. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate it. It just seems that they could stock more for less cost per fish, and get more fish to make it to spawning size. 1800 fish per year in the Missouri, which is how many acre feet of water seems like a drop in the bucket.

The member formerly known as Skipjack




Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users