The state fish of West Virginia

The brook trout is the only trout species native to West Virginia streams. Native brook trout live and reproduce in only the coldest and purest of our mountain streams. These streams are generally less than 15 feet wide, well shaded, and have numerous pools. Although these streams often support large numbers of brook trout, the trout tend to be small fish that average five to six inches in length and seldom exceed 10 inches. Brook trout are characterized by a dark green back covered with lighter worm-shaped markings, bluish sides and a pink to scarlet belly. The sides of the trout are profusely sprinkled with yellow spots, interspersed with red ones. The lower fins are orange-red with a distinctive white stripe on the front edge. Given its beauty and the fact that the brook trout is our only native trout, it’s no wonder that in 1973 it was selected to be the official state fish. Brook trout spawn primarily during October. Their nests, called redds, are built near the lower end of the pools where the gravel is swept clean of silt and fresh oxygenated water is abundant. Since these streams are generally low and clear during the fall, spawning activity can be readily observed in many of the small, cold headwater streams of the Elk, Greenbrier and Williams rivers, as well as Seneca and Gandy creeks. While there are 500 miles of native trout streams in West Virginia, the streams are small and represent only two percent of the total miles of stream in the state. Brook trout are not picky eaters and feed on a wide variety of food items. During the winter and early spring, much of their food consists of aquatic insects and other fish. The insects include mayflies, caddisflies and stoneflies. In the summer and early fall, their diet changes to terrestrial insects. These are insects like grasshoppers, Japanese beetles and bees that normally live on the land but become fish food when they fall or are washed into the stream.

WV Fishing Fun Facts

• Thirty-three (33) percent of in-state respondents preferred fishing rivers, 29 percent lakes, and 27 percent streams. Forty-eight (48) percent of out-of-state respondents preferred fishing rivers, 31 percent streams, and 15 percent lakes. • Eighteen (18) percent of in-state respondents owned a fishing license from a state other than West Virginia in addition to their West Virginia fishing license. Meanwhile, 61 percent of out-of-state respondents owned a nonresident fishing license in other states as well as West Virginia. • A catch and release format was preferred by 46 percent of in-state respondents, while 24 percent liked to catch and keep the fish they caught. Meanwhile, 51 percent of nonresidents surveyed preferred a catch and release format, and 27 percent liked to catch and keep the fish they caught. • Thirty-eight (38) percent of the in-state respondents indicated they had fished at a West Virginia fee-fishing location in the past. Fourteen (14) percent indicated they had fished at multiple fee-fishing locations in West Virginia. Meanwhile, only 9 percent of the out-of-state respondents indicated they had fished at a West Virginia fee-fishing location in the past and only one respondent had fished at multiple West Virginia fee-fishing locations. • Word of mouth, signs, billboards, and newspaper advertisements/articles were the primary forms of communication used by in-state respondents to identify fee-fishing locations they had visited. Word of mouth and newspaper advertisements/articles were the only forms of communication used to identify fee-fishing locations by out-of-state respondents. • Those who had not fished at a West Virginia fee-fishing location in the past were asked if they would be willing to do so in the future. Forty (40) percent of in-state respondents and 28 percent of out-of-state respondents said they would be interested in patronizing a West Virginia fee-fishing location in the future. This would seem to indicate strong support for developing recreational fee-fishing opportunities in West Virginia. • Respondents were asked to identify which type of fish they would like to fish for at West Virginia fee-fishing locations. Given the opportunity to check a number of species from a wide range provided on the survey, the most preferred species by in-state respondents were (in descending order of preference) Bluegill, Trout, Catfish, and Bass. Out-of-state respondents order of preference for fish caught at fee-fishing locations were Trout, Bass, Catfish, and Crappie.2 • In-state respondents thought the size of fish being caught and the type of fish provided were the two most important features that a recreational fee-fishing operation could offer. This was followed by the cost charged to fish at the site, the availability of on-site bait and tackle, and the ability to catch a fish every visit. Out-of-state respondents thought the type of fish provided and the size of fish being caught were the two most important features that a recreational fee-fishing operation could offer. This was followed by the cost charged to fish at the site, the ability to catch a fish every visit, and a catch and release program. • As for operational fee-fishing features, cleanliness was the most important feature to both in-state and out-of-state respondents. Site safety, the availability of clean rest rooms, hours the facility is open, and adequate parking were the next most important operational features to in-state respondents. Out-of-state respondents rated visual surroundings, site safety, adequate parking, location, and hours the facility is open as their next most important operational features. • Both groups of respondents thought that an alcohol-free area and the availability of a picnic area were the two most important recreational features a fee-fishing operation could offer patrons. However, the in-state respondents rated these features as much more important than their out-of-state counterparts did. • Both groups of respondents were asked if they would be willing to pay a daily permit fee-to fish a privately stocked stream in West Virginia. Twenty-four (24) percent of in-state and 28 percent of out-of -state respondents said they would be willing to pay a daily fee-for this opportunity. However, a large number in each group was neither for nor against this concept at the time the survey was conducted. That is, more than one-half of in-state and more than two-thirds of out-of-state respondents have either a favorable (yes) or at least a neutral (not sure and would need more information) position about this concept, making it a concept that could potentially be used to increase the demand for recreational fee-fishing in West Virginia. • The possibility of developing an arrangement whereby an organization (private resort, state park, bed-and-breakfast, etc.) would put together a fishing package offering a variety of West Virginia fishing locations (public and/or private) for different types of fish was examined. More than 40 percent of in-state respondents answered in the affirmative to this concept, and another one-third (33 percent) said they would need more information but would consider this type of arrangement. Meanwhile another 12 percent were not sure at this time but may consider it in the future. Out-of-state respondents were also asked if such an arrangement would be of interest to them. Thirty-one (31) percent replied yes, but 27 percent said they would need more information. Another 17 percent were not sure at this time. • In-state respondents indicated they would travel an average of approximately 100 miles to go fishing. Out-of-state respondents said they would travel an average of approximately 250 miles to go fishing in West Virginia and most (78 percent) would stay two or more days when partaking in a West Virginia fishing outing. • Ninety-five (95) percent of out-of-state respondents indicated they stayed overnight during their West Virginia fishing visits. Motels, hotels, and lodging at state parks were frequented by 47 percent of the respondents. Another 15 percent stayed at paid public campgrounds. The remaining 38 percent stayed at either a private residence or an overnight camping site where fees are not required. • Both groups were asked if most of their fishing trips were part of another activity (such as a camping trip, vacation, etc.). Most in-state respondents (76 percent) viewed fishing as a stand-alone activity. The other 24 percent incorporated fishing outings into other activities. The opposite was true for nonresidents. Sixty-four (64) percent of out-of-state respondents combined their West Virginia fishing trip with other activities. These other activities were mostly two- or three-day weekend visits or extended stays lasting four or more days.3 • Most respondents indicated they tended to fish with someone else. Specifically, 44 percent of the in-state state respondents went fishing with a family member, and another 41 percent went fishing with a friend. When fishing in West Virginia, 64 percent of out-of-state respondents went fishing with a friend(s), and another 25 percent went fishing with a family member. • Two-thirds (66 percent) of in-state respondents were employed full time, and 19 percent were retired. Meanwhile, 82 percent of out-of-sate respondents were employed on a full-time basis, and 14 percent were retired. • Approximately 43 percent of in-state respondents indicated they had a gross household income exceeding $35,000 annually. Sixty-eight (68) percent of the out-of-state respondents reported their gross household income exceeded $35,000 annually.

2012 Trout Stocking

2012 Trout Stocking

January 19, 2012

South Branch (Franklin)
January 18, 2012

Due to weather, no waters stocked today.

January 17, 2012

James P. Bailey Tailwaters
Shavers Fork (upper section)
Watoga Lake
January 13, 2012

Due to weather, no waters stocked today.

January 12, 2012

Hurricane Reservoir
Spruce Knob Lake
January 11, 2012

Blackwater River
Glady Fork
Krodel Lake
Lick Creek Pond
Shavers Fork (Bemis)
South Branch (Smoke Hole)
Wayne Dam
January 10, 2012

Anderson Lake
Bullskin Run
Cacapon Park Lake
Cedar Creek Lake
Elk River
Evitts Run
Fitzpatrick Lake
Gandy Creek
Laurel Fork (Randolph)
Little Beaver Lake
Middle Creek
Miletree Lake
Mill Creek of Opequon Creek
New Creek
North Fork of Patterson Creek
Opequon Creek
Rocky Marsh Run
January 9, 2011

Tomlinson Run
January 6, 2012

Summit Lake
January 5, 2012

Anthony Creek
Barboursville Lake
Chief Cornstalk Lake
Chief Logan Lake
Curtisville Lake
Huey Lake
Knapps Creek
Laurel Lake
Lost River
Ridenour Lake
Rollins Lake
Trout Run
Turkey Run Lake
Waites Run
January 4, 2012

North Fork of South Branch
North Fork of South Branch (C&R)
Pennsboro Reservoir
Shavers Fork (lower section)
Tracy Lake
January 3, 2012

Larenim Park Lake

West Virginia Winter

Most know there is a plenty of things to do in the mountains of West Virginia during the Spring, Summer, and Fall. One of the best kept secrets in the mountain state is the ski resorts that come to life when the tempatures plunge. The 2012 winter has had a slow start but I was in despirate need of getting some wind through my gills so I decided to head down I 77 to check out Winterplace Ski Resort. Winterplace is the most accessable ski area in WV, just a couple minutes off the interstate. We pulled into the resort and thought we had made a bad call since there had been no snow sighted on the trip. Thankfully the snowmakers had been hard at work covering the mountain with several feet of white stuff. It was very easy to find parking, get a lift ticket, and grab our fitst chair of the season being a weekday, the resort only had a few dozen cars in the parking lot. The snow was groomed well and we never waited in a lift line for more than a minute. After about ten laps the legs started to burn and the deck behind the resort center look like a great place to chill out with a cold beer and and soak in some rays. If your looking for a nice way to get out this winter you can visit www.winterplace.com or call 304-787-3221 for the snow phone or www.gladesprings.com for great lodging that includes free shuttle and lift tickets.

New River Stops at Kanawha Falls?

Fish Distribution
Kanawha Falls is the primary physical barrier that divides the distinct fish fauna of the New River System from that of the Upper Ohio River System (fig. 4). About 90 native species are known from basin streams downstream from Kanawha Falls. This area, referred to as the Kanawha River System, is, along with other river basins throughout West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Maryland, part of the Upper Ohio River System (Hocutt and others, 1986). Upstream from Kanawha Falls, the New River System includes the New and Gauley Rivers, their tributaries, and about one mile of the Kanawha River. The New River System has no more than 45 native species, 8 of which are endemic (found nowhere else in the world) (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1994). Many or most of the native species of the New River System are cold tolerant and thought to be relicts of Pleistocene glaciation (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1994). Many researchers have studied the routes of dispersal for the rest of the native species (Cope, 1868; Addair, 1944; Hocutt and others, 1978, Hocutt and others, 1979; Jenkins and Burkhead, 1994). Whatever the route of natural dispersal into the New River System, at the arrival of Europeans the New River was a depauperate (lacking in species) warm-water system surrounded by environmentally similar stream systems with richer faunas.
Starnes and Etnier (1986) consider much of all fish zoogeography speculative. The native status of several fish species in the New River System is not definitely known, because studies extensive enough to document fish species distribution were not done until after many non-native species were well established in many streams. Stocking records show that some fish species were introduced soon after the first survey of the fish in the basin, when collections were made at only four sites in Virginia (Cope, 1868; Jenkins and Burkhead, 1994). The second survey of the basin’s fish (at fewer than 10 sites) was made in response to a reported precipitous decline in Appalachian Plateaus fish populations caused by elimination of the virgin forest and related events, including widespread fires and commercial harvesting of stream fish using explosives (Goldsborough and Clark, 1908; Clarkson, 1964). No extensive basinwide fish collections were made until the 1930’s, well after fisheries managers had pursued aggressive stocking programs but probably before rapid transportation enabled anglers to move bait species extensively across drainage boundaries.
Addair (1944) collected fish throughout the West Virginia part of the basin during the 1930’s. He collected 28 fish species from about 50 sites upstream from Kanawha Falls, and some of these (smallmouth, spotted, and rock bass, common carp) were known introductions. Addair collected fish only by seining. Fish collection technology has improved since the 1930’s, making it possible to collect more species of fish from a given stream reach, including species that might have been present but not abundant during Addair’s surveys. However, human movement of bait fish across drainage basin boundaries became widespread during or shortly after Addair’s surveys. These trends combine to make the native status of species first collected in the basin since Addair’s collections ambiguous. Scientific judgment of the native status of several species in the New River System has changed through time (Jenkins and others, 1972; Hocutt, Stauffer, and Jenkins, 1986; Jenkins and Burkhead, 1994). Known non-native fish species continue to expand their ranges in the New River System (Cincotta and others, 1999); this expansion suggests that some species presently considered native or tentatively native, which were first collected in the 1970’s at only a few sites but are now more widespread, may not be native.New River

USGS Kanawha Basin Facts

Description of the Kanawha River BasinThe Kanawha River Basin drains 12,223 mi2 in North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia (Messinger and Hughes, 2000). The New River, the major tributary of the Kanawha River, is formed in North Carolina (fig. 1). Major tributaries (> 400 mi2) of the New River are the Bluestone and Greenbrier Rivers in West Virginia. The Kanawha River is formed at Gauley Bridge, W.Va., by the confluence of the New and Gauley Rivers, and its other major tributaries are the Elk and Coal Rivers. The Kanawha River drains to the Ohio River at Point Pleasant, W.Va.
The Kanawha River drains parts of three physiographic provinces (fig. 2), the Blue Ridge Province (17 percent), Valley and Ridge Province (23 percent), and the Appalachian Plateaus Province (60 percent) (Fenneman, 1938). In the Appalachian Plateaus part of the basin, hilltop altitude ranges from about 1,000 ft to about 4,000 ft, generally from northwest to east and southeast, and relief and stream gradient generally are greater in the area with greater altitude. The differences in altitude and relief within the Appalachian Plateaus have caused differences in environmental conditions including precipitation, streamflow, stream gradient, terrestrial vegetation, and land use (Messinger and Hughes, 2000).
The climate of the Kanawha River Basin is classified as continental, with four distinct seasons and marked temperature contrast between summer and winter (Messinger and Hughes, 2000). The maximum precipitation in the basin is greater than 60 in/yr both in the northeastern Appalachian Plateaus and in the southern Blue Ridge Province. The minimum precipitation in the basin, about 36 in/yr, is in the Valley and Ridge Province and in the Greenbrier Valley, in a regional rain shadow; however, the westernmost part of the Appalachian Plateaus receives only slightly more precipitation, about 40–45 in/yr.
Streams are regulated by four major flood-control dams, three navigation dams, and several smaller dams. All these dams obstruct fish movement. No fish that migrate to or from the ocean have ever been common in the basin, although some native fish, notably suckers, are strongly migratory within and near the basin. Ninety miles of the Kanawha River main stem are regulated for barge navigation by large locks and dams at London, Marmet, and Winfield. This entire reach of the river is dredged periodically.
Streams in the Blue Ridge Province follow a dendritic drainage pattern. Many mountain streams are cold and support (or formerly supported) brook trout populations, but the larger streams are warm. Stream water is typically dilute (less than 200 mg/L dissolved solids) and neutral to slightly acidic. Streams of the Valley and Ridge Province follow a trellised drainage pattern. Bedrock in the valleys is typically shale and limestone, and waters in Valley and Ridge streams are generally slightly alkaline
(7.0–8.0 pH units) and contain more dissolved solids (200–350 mg/L) than do streams in the Blue Ridge Province.
Streams throughout the Appalachian Plateaus follow a dendritic drainage pattern. Many high-altitude streams are cold, and some streams draining areas larger than 100 mi2 support trout populations. Bedrock in the northeastern part of the Appalachian Plateaus generally is inert, insoluble sandstone and shale. Stream water in this area typically is very dilute (30–100 mg/L dissolved solids) and poorly buffered, and some streams have been degraded by acid precipitation (Messinger, 1997). Streams in the rest of the Appalachian Plateaus typically have lower gradients than streams in the areas of highest altitude. The Greenbrier River and its eastern tributaries are underlain by limestone, and their waters are mildly alkaline (7.0–8.0 pH units), well buffered, and moderate in dissolved solids (150–200 mg/L). Bedrock in the western part of the Appalachian Plateaus Province is predominantly sandstone, shale, and coal, with interbedded limestone. The shale typically yields more solutes than the sandstone does, and relative amounts of shale increase in a gradient from south to north. Stream water in the western part of the Appalachian Plateaus contains more dissolved solids than any other part of the basin, with typical concentrations of 500 mg/L in the Coal River and its tributaries, the downstream tributaries of the Elk River, and many minor tributaries of the Kanawha River. Most stream water in this part of the basin is mildly alkaline and well buffered. The basin is mostly forest (81 percent) with a substantial amount of agricultural land (16 percent) (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Interagency Consortium, 1997). Major industries in the basin include coal mining and chemical manufacturing in West Virginia, timbering throughout most of the basin, and pasture agriculture in Virginia, North Carolina, and parts of West Virginia (Messinger and Hughes, 2000). The Kanawha River Basin produces about 7 percent of the coal mined in the United States, mostly from a band of Pennsylvanian-age rocks in West Virginia (fig. 3). Where coal is minable, it has usually been mined repeatedly, using different methods (Paybins and others, 2001). Numbers of active surface and underground mines and abandoned mines are all generally greatest in the areas with the most total coal production, complicating attempts to separate the effects of these factors. Major hydrologic effects of coal mining include addition of sulfate, aluminum, iron, and manganese to water, and increase in stream sedimentation. Base flow is increased downstream from valley fills (Wiley and others, 2001), but subsidence from underground mining beneath valley floors can dewater aquifers and streams (Hobba, 1981) The New River may be among the oldest rivers in the world, although the claim that it is the second oldest river in the world is no longer considered to be well-founded (Swift, 2001; Lessing, 1997). Until about 2 million years ago, the New River was the headwater of the Teays River, the master stream flowing from the central Appalachian Mountains toward the Gulf of Mexico (Fridley, 1950). The native fish fauna of the New River is probably affected by both the New River’s ancient position as head of the Teays River, and by combinations of geomorphic barriers and climate changes during times of glaciation (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1994).

New River Musky

Muskellunge were first stocked in the New River in 1972. The total number of fish stocked varied from year to year until a stocking rate of 1-2 fingerlings per pool acre became the standard. Tiger musky were stocked a few years but survival was poor and anglers were not seeing them, so we went back to stocking pure strain musky. A musky habitat study began in 1992 and lasted through 1995. Pool lengths, widths, and depths were measured on the Clinch, New, James, and Shenandoah Rivers. Aquatic vegetation was identified. Stocking rates and stocking locations were then adjusted to more efficiently allocate the muskies produced in our hatchery system.
Beginning in 2000, a cooperative musky research project between Virginia Tech and our Department, began to evaluate management of the New River musky fishery. Musky captured by electrofishing in the Whitethorne section of the river were outfitted with radio transmitters and tracked weekly for three years. During that time, additional sampling was done each winter and early spring throughout the New. Stomachs of each collected musky were pumped for food items, and most fish were released back into the river. A select few were sacrificed for additional internal investigations, and a bone called the cleithra, found in the gill covering plate, was removed for aging of the fish. Data analysis lead researchers to recommend an increase in the minimum harvest length from 30 inches to 42 inches, and a decrease in the creel limit from two fish per day to one fish per day on the entire New River and its impoundments. The new regulations were approved and went into effect on July 1, 2006.

Current Management Project

One of the goals of the New River musky stocking program has been to produce a self sustaining, naturally reproducing population of fish, with the understanding that periodic stockings would have to be done to support the population. For the last 20 years or so,
musky reproduction was considered possible in the New, particularly in the lower river below Claytor Lake because of the abundant habitat, forage, and adult population found there. To document reproduction, a plan was devised to skip a couple of years of stockings in the lower river in 2004 and 2006, and to intensively sample for young-of-year (YOY) musky the following winters (when the fish would be nearly a year old). If young fish were found, it would be assumed that they were naturally reproduced. In addition, all musky stocked in 2005 received a fin clip, and all those stocked in the lower river in 2007 were clipped and given a pink visual implant elastomer (plastic) mark in their anal fin.

Our musky, produced at the Buller Fish Cultural Station near Marion, VA, are usually four to six inches in length when stocked. A change was made in the program in 2007 for the New River fish. Following the draining of the production pond at Buller, the New River fish were stocked back into the pond after it was refilled. They were fed with minnows for an additional three months and when the pond was drained in September, the musky averaged nine inches with some as long as twelve inches in length. The purpose of the grow-out plan was to stock a larger fish, hoping for better survival the first year.

Management Project Results

Electrofishing on the lower New in January and February, 2005, resulted in the capture or close observance (defined as just out of reach of the net!) of 25 YOY musky, which equates to a catch-per-effort (CPE) rate of 1.6 YOY musky per hour of electrofishing
(Table 1). On the upper New at Fosters Falls and Austinville during that same time period, only one YOY was captured for a CPE of 0.1 per hour (Table 2). All of these 26 YOY had to have been naturally reproduced since no musky were stocked in 2004.

Sampling on the lower river in 2006 resulted in approximately the same YOY CPE at 1.5 per hour, and a slight increase in the upper river to 0.5 YOY per hour. The increase in CPE on the upper river is not really significant as it reflects the capture of only two young musky rather than one the year before. None of the YOY captured in 2006 exhibited the fin clip done to 2005 stocked musky. Here again is evidence of natural reproduction. In addition, several two year old musky were captured in 2006 that came from a non-stocked year in 2004. It was decided that sampling for YOY musky should be concentrated more on the lower New for the next two years where natural reproduction appeared to be much more significant.

There was a slight drop in YOY CPE on the lower New in 2007 to 1.2 per hour. But as in 2005, all 25 fish were the result of natural reproduction since no stockings took place in 2006. CPE remained the same on the upper river but again, only two YOY were caught there.

A dramatic increase in the number of YOY musky collected took place below Claytor Lake in 2008, all the way to West Virginia. Young fish were found in high numbers at almost every sampling location for a CPE of 7.7 per hour. The most significant thing about this was that only three fish exhibited the pink elastomer mark and fin clip of the 2007 stocked musky. The rest of the more than 100 YOY were wild fish. Only one short sample was done above Claytor and no musky were seen.

Adult musky were captured and/or observed each year of the investigation. Adult CPE had been slowly increasing on the lower river but then dropped significantly in 2008. Sampling conditions were poor for adult collections in 2008 as the
water was low and extremely clear for most of the sample dates. Large musky tend to remain more in the middle of the river under these conditions and they are not easily sampled there. They can also easily avoid the electric field when the water is clear and they can see
the boat from a distance. CPE on the upper river decreased each year on the upper river but was most likely the result of the decrease in sampling effort there. The most abundant size group of adult fish observed on both sections of the New has been fish in the mid to upper 30 inch range. However, musky up to 45 inches were routinely seen.

Current Population Status

The New River, particularly the reach from Claytor Dam downstream to West Virginia, has been and remains today, the premier destination to fish for large musky in Virginia. Anglers have registered 361 citation size musky (40 inches or 15 pounds)
over the last eleven years, including eight over 50 inches (Table 4). The present state record, a 53 inch, 45.5 pound giant, was caught in the lower New June 1, 2007. Based on the weight of eggs taken from a 39 pound musky sacrificed during the joint VT/DGIF study, this female musky undoubtedly would have weighed over 50 pounds back in the spring during spawning
season.

Almost half of the registered citation musky were caught during the May through July time period. The coldest months of December through January produced the second highest total of citation fish. Many large musky are caught by smallmouth anglers throughout the year, but the majority of the winter citations are registered by dedicated musky anglers fishing the river pretty much by themselves. March and September are the two months when the lowest number of citations are registered from the New. During March there is a migration from winter holes to spawning areas, and in September, the migration is back to their winter holes. It becomes difficult for anglers to find the moving fish during those months.

This high rate of angler harvest was one of the main reasons that the size limit was raised to 42 inches in 2006. Almost 50% of the citations were for fish under 42 inches and it is a good thing that those size musky are now protected from harvest. Up to about 40 inches or so, musky grow more in length than weight, but from there on up they really pack on the pounds and become true trophy fish.

Musky natural reproduction was first documented in 2005, and verified in 2007 and 2008. Natural reproduction by musky in the lower New produced an outstanding year class of young fish in 2007. Aquatic weed beds and backwater eddies covered in leaves are prime spawning areas for musky and the lower New has these habitats in great abundance. The question remains as to whether or not natural reproduction alone can maintain the musky population at its present level in the lower New. Although winter musky sampling has not yet been as frequent on the upper river, spring bass, sunfish, and walleye sampling has not shown musky reproduction to be significant upstream of Claytor Lake.

A couple of weeks after this report was written, we spent almost two hours electrofishing two sections of the lower New in order to collect adult brood fish for Buller Hatchery. All total, close to 30 adult musky (up to approximately 30 pounds) and eight YOY were collected in that short time.

Management Recommendations

The 2008 lower New River musky stocking should be cancelled due to the finding of an extremely abundant 2007 year class. Natural reproduction in 2007 should be able to support the fishery without stocking in 2008. Fin clips collected from sampled musky in 2007 and 2008 should be genetically analyzed at Virginia Tech to determine if a unique native stock of musky exists in the New River. Intensive sampling should continue on the lower New during January and February 2009, to continue documentation of natural reproduction. The results of that sampling and the genetic research should be used to develop a long term stocking plan for the lower river. One idea is to base whether to stock and the number to stock on winter surveys of the abundance of the previous years YOY portion of the fishery. Consideration should be given to always stocking advanced fingerlings of at least nine inches to increase the chance of survival. Smaller musky are too easily preyed upon immediately after stocking.

The 650 musky to be stocked in the upper New River in 2008 should be grown to advanced fingerling size as they were in 2007. Those to be stocked in 2009 should also be grown to advanced fingerling size prior to stocking, and also marked in some way to
facilitate an investigation into quantifying natural reproduction. Surveys should occur during the winter of 2009 as time allows, but intensive sampling needs to be a priority in 2010 to look for the marked individuals stocked in 2009.