Tim Smith

I agree the fund from power generation are a logical source for these funds (although it's not clear to me the Corps collects any of that). If the dams are a cash cow you can be sure there are people lined up to collect who will be hopping mad if their financial ox gets gored. To get any money out of the COE, you'd have to sue them and the people paying the higher electric bills may not feel especially happy to take on that burden. This is exactly right as well. But believe me you don't want the government just letting hatcheries do whatever they want to do. Thats a necessary cost for all aquaculture. There are enough numbskulls in the world for one of them to fall into a position of responsibility who is sloppy with disease issues or parasites or who thinks that snakeheads would be a great fish to stock, or maybe wels.....and hey shouldn't we try that freshwater shark from Africa...or that genetically engineered carp....You gotta have oversight because some of those effects would never go away. Genes last longer than nuclear waste.

Well would be the point of privatizing the hatcheries, Muddy.

...and when the government makes it possible to make money it's called "stimulus", or "pork", depending on whether or not you're the one making the money. The government can't step away from private hatcheries altogether. They're too dangerous. It's pretty hard to get rich raising fish. A capitalist would say that competition would keep the prices down. Look how much trout cost in the grocery store. Knock off the processing, retail and transport costs and that's a realistic estimate of how much a stocker should cost. Not quite a Six Flags trip, but probably more expensive than 3$ yes.

...COE is still federal and publically funded (and a monsterous cash sink) but it's a fair point...assuming there ARE profits from the dams?

That's how it works in Central Illinois too. You usually know immediately which species you've caught just because of the habit habitat you're in. About once a year I fish a long slow gallery of timber fall downs in Central Illinois. Until recently it used to be full of big spots, but those have gone...died of old age I assume. I also rarely see hybrids there, but they do occur. In that system there is a long term data set there that shows smallmouth were nowhere in sight 100 years ago...but now they dominate most of the river. I have hypothesized that the river was silitier at the beginning of the 19th century due to the coal mining on the river there there and that favored the spots. Now things are better (but not perfect) and the hard substrates have opened the door for smallmouth. It's just a guess. As is the notion the spotted bass affinity for warmth is one reason The Subject That Shall Not Be Named will affect this forum and middle American fisheries more and more in years to come.

That could be part of it, Justin, but if the spots are all runts, how are they displacing the larger smallmouth? Al, I know this is a topic close to your heart, so I'd be anxious to hear any insights you may have. I don't see anything conclusive out there about how this kind of displacement plays out, but there are multiple scenarios where hybridization can impact a population without showing up in the fishery. Remember, that's a cross of 2 species and with a genetic code that's not adapted to anything anywhere. Crazy mixed-up kids don't generally fare well in the world. Simply by feeding over-agressively hybrids could easily be wiped out by small predators before they ever reached 2 inches in length(even under ideal circumstances only 2 offspring would make it in a stable population anyway). There is pretty good evidence that hybridization has wiped out smallmouth during spot invasions in the Southeast. There was much less hybrization where the 2 species co-occurred naturally. Here's a couple of papers that studied this issue. Hybridization between introduced spotted bass and smallmouth bass in reservoirs Author(s): Pierce, Patrick C.; Van Den Avyle, Michael J. Source: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Volume: 126 Issue: 6 Pages: 939-947 Published: Nov., 1997 Abstract: Introductions of black basses Micropterus spp. beyond their native ranges have led to hybridization within the genus. In the southeastern USA, the potential for hybridization appears high because species introductions have been common in reservoirs. We determined the extent of hybridization between smallmouth bass M. dolomieu and spotted bass M. punctulatus in reservoirs in which introductions of either species into the native range of the other species had occurred. Three allozyme loci were used to distinguish the two species and their hybrids. Significant hybridization occurred in two of three reservoirs where introductions had been reported. In Lake Chatuge, Georgia-North Carolina, where the Alabama subspecies of spotted bass M. p. henshalli was introduced, 77 of 276 fish had hybrid genotypes, and only 2 fish had genotypes of the native smallmouth bass. In Thurlow Reservoir, Alabama, where smallmouth bass were introduced and Alabama spotted bass were native, 3 of 17 fish had hybrid genotypes. Only 1 fish with a possible hybrid genotype was identified in two reservoirs containing native smallmouth bass and northern spotted bass M. p. punctulatus. Cytonuclear introgressive swamping and species turnover of bass after an introduction Author(s): Avise, J. C.; Pierce, P. C.; Van Den Avyle, M. J.; Smith, M. H.; Nelson, W. S.; Asmussen, M. A. Source: Journal of Heredity Volume: 88 Issue: 1 Pages: 14-20 Published: 1997 Abstract: Species-specific RFLP markers from mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) were identified and employed in conjunction with previously reported data for nuclear allozyme markers to examine the genetic consequences of an artificial introduction of spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus) into a north Georgia reservoir originally occupied by native smallmouth bass (M. dolomieui). The cytonuclear genetic data indicate that within 10-15 years following the unauthorized introduction, a reversal in these species' abundances has occurred and that more than 99% of the population sample analyzed here consists of spotted bass or products of interspecific hybridization. This demographic shift, perhaps ecologically or environmentally mediated, has been accompanied by introgressive swamping; more than 95% of the remaining smallmouth bass nuclear and cytoplasmic alleles are present in individuals of hybrid ancestry. Dilocus cytonuclear disequilibria were significantly different from zero, with patterns indicative of an excess of homospecific genetic combinations (relative to expectations from single-locus allelic frequencies) and a disproportionate contribution of smallmouth bass mothers to the hybrid gene pool. Results document dramatic genetic and demographic changes following the human-mediated introduction of a nonnative species. HYBRIDIZATION BETWEEN SMALLMOUTH BASS, MICROPTERUS-DOLOMIEU, AND SPOTTED BASS, M-PUNCTULATUS, IN THE MISSOURI RIVER SYSTEM, MISSOURI Author(s): KOPPELMAN JB Source: COPEIA Issue: 1 Pages: 204-210 Published: FEB 1 1994 Times Cited: 13 References: 17 Citation Map Abstract: Micropterus dolomieu, M. punctulatus, and hybrids between the two species were examined electrophoretically to provide identification and to determine the extent of introgression. Micropterus punctulatus has invaded Moniteau Creek and South Moreau Creek, two tributaries of the Missouri River system in central Missouri, in the past 50 years. Samples of the two species from nonhybridizing populations were also examined to establish diagnostic loci. Allozyme patterns revealed a high hybrid proportion in population samples from the two study streams. Only one F-1 hybrid was identified, indicating that limited interspecific hybridization events are occurring. Most hybrids were diagnosed as backcrosses with the most abundant pure species in each stream, verifying that introgression has occurred. Environmental factors have likely contributed to the higher rate of hybridization in these streams than in other streams where the two species occur. Electrophoresis of allozymes proved a suitable technique for detecting introgressive hybridization under these circumstances. It's likely that effects of hybridization play out differently in different environments. I've fished streams where spots and smallmouth seemed to be in equillibrium, where long term data suggests smallmouth have displaced spots, and where spots seem to have taken over. What exactly happened/is happening in Missouri? You'll need more data to know for sure. And you'll need a controlled scientific experiment to know if removing the catch limit will help.

Yep. Your neighbor's mutt is a bigger threat than these cats.

There is speculation (but I haven't seen a conclusive experiment) that spots impact smallmouth through hybridization. The comments about the quality of spots as a game fish are "spot" on, and yes they deserve good management where they are NATIVE, not where they are invasive (...and just wait until their range pushes a bit further north they establish in the Kankakee in Illinois; that's Illinois' best smallmouth stream and the potential for economic impacts will be significant). There is a growing number of groups who are trying to redirect angler harvest onto nuisance species. "Carpbusters", "Lionfish Hunters" and others. Whether or not those efforts can actually succeed is an open question. They might work to lessen impacts or they might just change the size structure of the impacted population. Whether or not anglers are good at IDing fish is statistically "no". Here on a fishing forum, most of us are deeply into the sport and know our way around the species we catch, but most people just dabbling at it are incompetant due to inexperience and lack of interest. I'll never forget the guy swaggering down the dock on Lake Yellowstone with a 20+ inch Yellowstone cutthroat (harvested completely illegally during a time cutthroat populations there were in critical danger) saying he had caught a lake trout. Walked right up to the concession building with it...to brag??? An angler who pays attention can ID spots without being a genius. In tournaments, they usually use one key characteristic, like the tongue tooth patch. If they did go this way, misidentified species (anything without the patch, for instance) in the creel would have to be prosectued to keep everyone honest (and there would have to be enough enforcement to make getting caught a possibility). The people who made honest mistakes would end up pretty mad. It would be a hassle for the COs to enforce and it's not sure to have an effect although if they had the patience to try, it would probably be worth an experimental run.

I absolutely agree, Justin (although semantically I should be clear that I'd call trout a "cold" water fishery). I understand the tailwater dams were needed and the impacts are something we have to live with. It makes perfect sense to make lemonade out of lemons in that case and if anyone can make a sustainable buck off them, more power to them. Native species are not an either/or with stocker trout but sometimes it seems there's not much room at the table for the natives. It does seem, however, though there are multiple double standards at play here and if the stocker trout are such a massive economic driver, why can't they pay their own way? Are the feds really needed to provide stocker trout? With everything else on the chopping block, where are the champions of the private sector to explain why these trout are an exception?

Spotted bass like warm water. Just sayin'.

I wish there were more places this point of view could get a hearing. This is where anglers cross the Rubicon from being a bunch of guys having fun in a river to being true conservationists of our natural heritage. Warm and cool water fisheries are SCREAMING for a better hearing for this point of view.

Is that what you meant here? If so, I agree. I could support privitizing the hatcheries, but any move like that would need significant oversight from the state or federal DNRs. There are way too many nimrods out there that don't have a clue about the damage you can do by playing God with fish stocking. At least the feds try their best to do careful science. Letting any old bozo churn out fish to stick any and everywhere they want with only the bottom line in mind could wreak havoc on a Biblical scale....think Asian carp....or worse. I hope that the other option does get serious attention too though. Native fisheries are the soul of fishing and both sides of the aisle should be able to support a low cost, sustainable, environmentally friendly resource like that.

This last part rings true for Ozark trout and points out the value of native fisheries which DO have a chance to survive over the long haul when the government isn't there to hand out checks. I wonder how many fish the feds are obligated to stock to reach "compensation"?

We are miles down that path already and if a lot of people have their way, that work on the very species you mention here will be gone long before the stocker trout are gone. I just saw an article in Illinois from a group that is outraged about sporting goods taxes being used on research of this type. They're demanding the state build them a shooting range instead...that's right...a state owned shooting range, which of course competes with private facilities and accomplishes absolutely nothing for the common good (except maybe a few less gut shot deer). The insanity is miles deep in places. LOVE the Voldemort reference. He does exist!

I am sure you're right about stocker trout and I'm sure the feds and states will do what they can to keep the program afloat. There will probably always be a trout farm somewhere where you can catch them too. I wonder though what shape most states are in to pick up the burden of additional production and how much money the feds will have left to buy those trout (that's a question, not a statement). In Arkansas they might be willing to go a long way to purchase a place like Norfork, given the out-of-state dollars the tailwaters attract. Elsewhere, I wonder. The Illinois stocker program is supposedly self sufficient through the purchase of trout tags. That becomes much less true if federal infrastructure disappears around it. I can't imagine Illinois spending more money on stocker trout these days.

Two opposite and unequal things could fill the void and both will probably be a bigger part of the fisheries landscape in the future. 1. Private stocking of public waters or more private fishing clubs. 2. Stronger angler interest in preserving the full life cycle of fisheries targets and the system that produces them, not just the catchable sizes. To be perfectly frank, the hatcheries have not always been helpful in the second category. In fact there are plenty of cases where rivers were left to deteriorate because hatcheries were shoveling round finned shmoo into the breech and no one thought anything was wrong.

Exactly. But that also means getting expectations in line with what a native/wild fishery can actually do. Not everyone is quite that grown up yet and there will be growing pains ahead.

The current congress has made some promises and if they don't start shutting some things down they can't possibly deliver. Hatcheries can make arguments that they are economic drivers, but that's the same kind of "stimulus" that was just rejected by the electorate. For people who care about fishing, it's time to start thinking about ways to have a sustainable past-time without being on the government dole.

From the AFS message board...

From the AFS message board...

Al, your line about learning to live around predators is an important one. Things like how you handle your garbage and whether or not your kids have the information, supervision and resources to protect themselves in the woods will affect the outcomes of those interactions. ...and sorry JD, you're going to have to wear that one. The tone of your post is resentment against the federal role and the endangered species act. Don't blame me if you picked an unpopular example to hash out your point. The geese are probably a better try... ....and it is indeed a better example. There are over 3 million Canadian geese in the Mississippi flyway. They're a nuisance, they're not in any danger of becoming extinct and any form of protection for them has become a ridiculous anachronism. But even then there are ways to deal with them. Even though you can't shoot them out of season or take their eggs without a federal permit you can harrass them all you like as long as you don't physically harm them. That's the legal basis for the goose suppression trade. Get out there now and stop them from nesting on your property in the spring and you won't have a goose problem this year. In almost every case you can get relief from nuisance behavior by even an endangered animal. You just can't take matters into your own hands without consulting authorities.

So now we resent not being able to shoot the national bird? We're not going to find much common ground there. No part of this discussion has anything to do with the Endangered Species Act. Bald eagles have been de-listed from the Endangered Species Act. They are protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (as are all raptors). The Endangered Species Act would only come into play for the re-emergence of mountain lions if that species were endangered across its range....which it is not. Federal involvement into wildlife management, however, is inevitable and appropriate. They are the most efficient way to manage wildlife that cross state boundaries and someone needs to be accounting for ecologically and economically important natural resources at the national level.

Alan Rubinowitz. Next week I'll be in some of the villages where he worked. I never met him formally but I once stayed in a hotel where he was staying and saw him. If I'm lucky they'll agree to set aside some of their land abutting the jaguar reserve he set up down here. I've been thinking of asking Panthera for help.

I learned that lesson one summer when I was driving all over the state doing field work. I was up early and in late and didn't have time or inclination to pack lunches so I ate fast food burgers 4 days a week. That was a serious eye-opener.