not exactly the most delicate restocking

Started by JaDub, August 30, 2018, 12:19:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


gitano

I've done that kind of stocking. It's not as bad as it seems.

Paul
Be nicer than necessary.

recoil junky

Better than hauling the fry in 5 gallon cream cans on mules.

It's amazing what classifies for news these days. There were pilot brothers (friends of my Dad) out of Missoula that flew anything anywhere. They stocked remote lakes in Montana using Ford Tri-Motors dumping cream cans out the cargo door. Too bad the fish chosen were brook trout instead of cut throats or grayling.

RJ
When you go afield, take the kids and please......................................wear your seatbelts.
Northwest Colorado.............Where the wapiti roam and deer and antelope run amuck. :undecided:  
Proud father of a soldier medic in The 82nd Airborne 325th AIR White Falcons :army:

gitano

When I first learned of this kind of stocking (aerial), I was concerned about mortality do to "the fall", but the facts are that that aerial stocking has a lower mortality than other methods that require transport of the fish to remote sites without oxygenation. Mortality of aerial stocking is actually pretty low - as a rule, less than 5%. The smaller the fish, the lower the mortality.

There's a bit of a trick to keeping aerial stocking mortality low. The plane has to be low enough to "hit the target", but high enough so that they have a chance to slow down.  The velocity with which they hit the water should be due to gravity only, not the speed of the airplane. Add trees and mountains into the mix, and aerial stocking can be a bit 'dicey'.

Paul
Be nicer than necessary.

JaDub


Tags: