Could Federal Hatcheries Be In Peril

[Justin Spencer]

Good article Dano, this is where the lobbyists earn their money, hopefully they can stop this. If not then it is the local politicians job to make sure these hatcheries can continue to operate either through the couties, state, or privately. I have no doubt that the resort owners, business owners and county and state officials are working diligently to ensure the hatcheries stay open.

[bigredbirdfan]

Is that what you meant here? If so, I agree.

Yes butter finger typing these days.

[Tim Smith]

Amen to that.

No matter what happens to the trout stocking around here, we always will have smallmouth, sunfish, catfish, and plenty of other species to fish for. I have been guilty of being something of a close-minded trout purist in the past, but with more time spent on some of our amazing native fisheries here in the Ozarks I have been cured of that-and now would venture to say I prefer native species such as smallmouth bass and goggle-eye to non-native trout-for the simple reason that they are native, and truly belong here. That's not to say I don't still have a soft spot for trout, but it has allowed me to be able to see that they are not necessary for the Ozarks to be one of the most unique fishing destinations in the world. That is why the possible cuts/closures of federal hatcheries isn't worrying me that much-so long as it does not affect the re-introduction/restoration of threatened or endangered native species.

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.

[Justin Spencer]

Warm and cool water fisheries are SCREAMING for a better hearing for this point of view.

Good point Tim, the hard part is when we create a cool water fishery where a warmwater fishery once prospered, then use federal bucks to prop up that fishery. Now that the industry has been created is it ethical to pull the rug out from under those that have invested their time and money into making a living from this resource? No easy answers in my opinion.

[Tim Smith]

Good point Tim, the hard part is when we create a cool water fishery where a warmwater fishery once prospered, then use federal bucks to prop up that fishery. Now that the industry has been created is it ethical to pull the rug out from under those that have invested their time and money into making a living from this resource? No easy answers in my opinion.

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?

[Outside Bend]

It was brought up on another forum, and I think it's an excellent point:

The Corps of Engineers (COE) dams are what wrecked warmwater Ozark fisheries. Yet from what I understand, the Fish and Wildlife Service is operating and footing the bill for the dams.

Shouldn't the COE be paying for the cost of mitigating the mess it created?

Why couldn't a small percentage of the profits generated by the Ozark dams be used to fund remediation for the problems created by those Ozark dams?

[Tim Smith]

Shouldn't the COE be paying for the cost of mitigating the mess it created?

Why couldn't a small percentage of the profits generated by the Ozark dams be used to fund remediation for the problems created by those Ozark dams?

...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?

[Outside Bend]

...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?

Here's the op-ed piece I found, and I think it raises some interesting issues:

http://mountainriverjournal.wordpress.com/

It's true COE is just another Federal project, but it does have revenue streams outside the federal budget- selling power to consumers is one example.

My point is (and the point of the article) is that COE is responsible for the dams, and should be responsible for mitigation of the dams- not the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Funding for mitigation shouldn't come from outside agencies, it shouldn't come from state fish and game agencies, it shouldn't even necessarily come from sportsmen (if I had my druthers I'd rather it be smallie water)- it should come from the agency that created the scenario in the first place. The responsibility lies with COE and no one else.

If that means the COE/Southwest Power have to raise their electricity rates to cover those cots, so be it.

[drew03cmc]

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.

I have been saying just that for years on this forum OTF. You used to fight me tooth and nail to keep the trout in the Ozarks, but I am pleased to see you changing your tune in light of the fact that our hatcheries might be getting the axe. I would still like to share a stretch of smallmouth creek with you, even though you're a trout guy by nature

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.

Tim, there are a few guys on here that have repeatedly said that our native fisheries deserve the attention the state gives to the trout program. We have lost smallmouth water, some good smallmouth water included, to trout stockings. The waters lost were, on the surface, great smallmouth habitat, but they are marginal trout water and are stocked at such a rate that the smallmouth and sunfish have been forced downstream or out of the stream altogether. I am thinking specifically of Capps Creek from Shoal Creek up to about the bridges. In my opinion, that is good looking brownie water. Maybe, if the hatcheries do have to go on hiatus or belly up altogether, the silver lining might be that smallmouth would eventually move back into these types of waters...I am hopeful that the state will urge Congress to do what is best for the budget.

[gotmuddy]

It figures, a actual government program that MAKES money and they want to cut it. How ridiculous.

Privatizing makes alot of sense to me. The local trout docks, lodges, and guides could support the hatcheries very easily.