Could Federal Hatcheries Be In Peril

[Tim Smith]

No doubt about it. But I think more more native and wild fish will be better in the end. That is with the exception of the tailwaters where natives will never be a significant part of the fish population again. That will be where the devastating effects of possible hatchery closures would take effect.

Right now I am more glad than ever that I am a freestone fisherman, because I don't foresee good times ahead for federal hatchery dependant tailwater fisheries. I honestly hope that I am wrong, but I guess we'll see. I am not the most fond of the tailwater fisheries, but I understand that many love them and for that reason I don't want to see them negatively impacted. But I just am not sure it can be helped.

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.

[ozark trout fisher]

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.

I totally agree. With the exceptions of the tailwaters that would have almost no fishery without the hatcheries, I would be just absolutely fine if not another trout was stocked in the Ozarks-let there be wild populations where the habitat is suitable, and let them disappear everywhere else. But I think I am so far in the minority there that it's kind of a moot point and I won't argue it.

[Danoinark]

I totally agree. With the exceptions of the tailwaters that would have almost no fishery without the hatcheries, I would be just absolutely fine if not another trout was stocked in the Ozarks-let there be wild populations where the habitat is suitable, and let them disappear everywhere else. But I think I am so far in the minority there that it's kind of a moot point and I won't argue it.

It wouldn't necessarily mean the end of stocker trout. The Feds could ask the state hatcheries in both Missouri and Arkanas to increase production and simply buy them to stock the tailwaters. Remember Federal legislation mandated that mitigation required them to make the tailwaters viable after the dams were built. The law doesn't say where the fish had to come from.

Dano

[jdmidwest]

Clinton closed down several in the 90's, Mammoth Spring Cool Water Hatchery was one. It has been revived, but not to its former self. It was raising smallies and stripers. I think they are involved in Mollusks, Hellbenders, and turtles now.

[Tim Smith]

It wouldn't necessarily mean the end of stocker trout. The Feds could ask the state hatcheries in both Missouri and Arkanas to increase production and simply buy them to stock the tailwaters. Remember Federal legislation mandated that mitigation required them to make the tailwaters viable after the dams were built. The law doesn't say where the fish had to come from.

Dano

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.

[Outside Bend]

Many of the federal hatcheries produce imperiled and endangered species- freshwater mussels, hellbenders, game and non-game fishes. IMO that's their best attribute, but you can't deny churning out thousands of trout a year has some pretty hefty economic impacts, and in places that may not see much economic activities otherwise.

What really concerns me is the precedent set- if hatcheries can be defunded under the banner of "fiscal responsibility," what's stopping folks from defunding other important conservation measures? Why couldn't they defund recovery of eastern brook trout, or westslope, golden, greenback, or apache trout? Niangua darters? Ozark hellbenders? Lots of federal dollars go into researching how The Topic That Shall Not Be Mentioned is affecting vulnerable species, and how managers can help preserve those species despite changes caused by The Topic That Shall Not Be Mentioned. What happens if someone decides that research isn't in the economic best interest of the country...what happens to those species at risk?

To me it could be one more step down the very bad path, of basing our priorities on dollars versus diversity.

That's as close as I'm willing to get to the line for now

[Phil Lilley]

It wouldn't necessarily mean the end of stocker trout. The Feds could ask the state hatcheries in both Missouri and Arkanas to increase production and simply buy them to stock the tailwaters. Remember Federal legislation mandated that mitigation required them to make the tailwaters viable after the dams were built. The law doesn't say where the fish had to come from.

Dano

Haven't read all the posts but most.

I think the law DOES say the FEDS have to provide coldwater species of fish for those tailwaters that lost their warmwater status. Probably not the proper way to put it but it gets my point across.

Clint Hale touched on it in our meeting the other night. He said Shepherd COULD come up with the trout if Neosho went away but he said the FEDS are required by mandate or law to provide a certain number of trout for Taneycomo.

MAY BE the feds would pay Shepherd to produce the trout but why would they close Neosho after they just spent millions of dollars in renovation and upgrades. Clint said Neosho is the oldest coldwater hatchery in the country? Or the West... one or the other.

I think he also said the Norfork raises other species of fish and that there's no other hatchery that could pick up that slack. I could be some what wrong on that.

[Quillback]

Sunday Arkansas Democrat Gazette had an article about the possible closure of the two federal hatcheries Greers and Norfolk, that supply the White and Norfolk tailwaters. The writer does believe the Feds are obligated to run these hatcheries as recompense for the damage caused to native fisheries when the dams were built.

The owner of Gaston's resort was quoted as saying that the money he pays in federal taxes every year is enough to run the hatcheries, of course wuth a hatchery shutdown Gaston's and all the other White river resorts would go out of business, people come from all over the midwest to fish the White.

The cost to run the hatcheries is approximately $1.5 million/year.

The writer doubts (and quotes AR trout biologists) that a viable wild only trout population would be self supporting over the long run.

[Tim Smith]

Many of the federal hatcheries produce imperiled and endangered species- freshwater mussels, hellbenders, game and non-game fishes. IMO that's their best attribute, but you can't deny churning out thousands of trout a year has some pretty hefty economic impacts, and in places that may not see much economic activities otherwise.

What really concerns me is the precedent set- if hatcheries can be defunded under the banner of "fiscal responsibility," what's stopping folks from defunding other important conservation measures? Why couldn't they defund recovery of eastern brook trout, or westslope, golden, greenback, or apache trout? Niangua darters? Ozark hellbenders? Lots of federal dollars go into researching how The Topic That Shall Not Be Mentioned is affecting vulnerable species, and how managers can help preserve those species despite changes caused by The Topic That Shall Not Be Mentioned. What happens if someone decides that research isn't in the economic best interest of the country...what happens to those species at risk?

To me it could be one more step down the very bad path, of basing our priorities on dollars versus diversity.

That's as close as I'm willing to get to the line for now

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!

[Tim Smith]

Sunday Arkansas Democrat Gazette had an article about the possible closure of the two federal hatcheries Greers and Norfolk, that supply the White and Norfolk tailwaters. The writer does believe the Feds are obligated to run these hatcheries as recompense for the damage caused to native fisheries when the dams were built.

The owner of Gaston's resort was quoted as saying that the money he pays in federal taxes every year is enough to run the hatcheries, of course wuth a hatchery shutdown Gaston's and all the other White river resorts would go out of business, people come from all over the midwest to fish the White.

The cost to run the hatcheries is approximately $1.5 million/year.

The writer doubts (and quotes AR trout biologists) that a viable wild only trout population would be self supporting over the long run.

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"?