What Fish Would You Like To Se Stocked And Where.

[Tim Smith]

last I heard they were doing the same with brook trout in Oregon.

As well they should, if they can. West coast trout belong in west coast rivers.

[Tim Smith]

Tim you and I both know that a sustainable fishery is the goal of all DNR’s where possible.

We both know that depends...or at least that's my opinion. DNRs are a mixed bag and most of them are balancing a wide variety of competing political demands.

I know of at least one salmon run in Washington where wild returning kings that still have the adipose fin are intentionally being culled at the hatchery. The biologist at that facility specifically stated they were being removed to keep them from going upstream and establishing a run. That's great for job security at the hatchery and it probably pleases a lot of polluters who would otherwise need to clean up their act, but that shows a complete disregard for sustainability.

Missouri's DNR has more political insulation than most, but there are plenty of places where congressman Billy Bob can get his local lake stocked however he likes it, sustainability or no.

Beyond that, over the last 30 years there has been a huge debate around the notion of hatcheries and exotics and their role and the "science" and level of caution being used out there varies tremendously depending on how people have positioned themselves politically within their agency (and other factors).

And where human population hasn’t gone out of control it works. Some species are listed as unsustainable by natural reproduction because of specific requirements, thus requiring breeding facilities to replenish the stock AKA Stocking programs.

There are places like that yes. But a native population in a functioning system doesn't have problems reproducing and they do it far cheaper.

If you have a large amount of harvest with a put and take fishery, some stocking might be warranted, but those should be the exceptions rather than the rule. I don't have a problem with urban trout programs that pay their own way through trout stamps. I don't really think those are especially good fisheries, but they're ok for kids and some people really like them. The stock isn't going anywhere and for now I can't see what harm they're doing. I'm not going to try to stop them.

It's when stocking programs start cutting into the DNR budget and priorities where the problems start.

It’s not evil or wrong to give anglers a chance at species that would not typically be native to their home waters. If research shows the impact will be minimal or nothing. Science is all too often thought of evil because of what it discovers with newer technology. You can’t blame the best technology of one day for what is discovered years down the road.

If you know introducing new species (or genetic strains) could have major effects and you proceed to stock anyway, they are doubly to blame. Blame them first for taking the risk and blame them second for not doing good enough science to know what was coming. Good people take responsibility for their mistakes. I couldn't disagree more with your statement here.

Yes there have been some mistakes but there has also been a lot of good. All anyone can do is make a determination based off the current knowledge and findings.

We also part ways pretty clearly here. I feel this and the next bit crosses the line into cavalier. You and Wayne (and a pretty big majority of anglers as far as I can tell) want to decide what's good based on short term economic judgments. A native steelhead river is a fisheries wasteland, Wayne. Really??

Why sell out?

I've watched good conservation organizations pass up huge opportunities to "go along and get along" and to promote their popularity at the cost of their ethics. You can have it. I'm not going there. Stocking exotics has risks (sometimes BIG risks) and people need to know them.

Frankenfish as some anglers call them are a fish of a lifetime to others. The weekend warrior who wants to catch a BIG fish doesn’t care about the biology involved or the science and research. They want to catch a big fish for pictures and bragging rights or to eat.

Then that weekend warrior needs to grow up, be a responsible person and take responsibility for the effects of their actions. Molly-coddling that attitude here doesn't do anyone anywhere any good.

There are fish that could do well in our lakes and that is where I would support them as those lakes were not native to start with and the construction of them forever changed the ecosystem of the river that was darn up to build them. Take advantage of those lakes and give the anglers chances at monsters in them. But do not mess with the untouched waterways. It is an argument that can be made to a DNR. You can only win so many battles and you need to pick which ones you can.

You're free to support whatever position you like. We probably agree that some principles apply some places that don't apply others.

We probably don't agree about how wise it is to promote stocking exotics in general. In general we don't know enough about genetics and diseases and parasites to know when we're doing harm (remember whirling disease?). Every time we figure out what we did wrong last time something new comes along that we didn't anticipate.

Why not just do well with what we have? Why not use the voice you have to support a conservative approach that uses stocking less and avoids building state-sponsored fisheries for things with the potential to do harm

Stocking programs are funded by anglers and boaters and so on by taxes and fees. So a DNR “being a business” if shown where the best return is will go with it.

Alright. So ask yourself...what's the bigger pay off for fisheries in Missouri...a kokanee salmon program in a couple of reservoirs, that a handful of people will manage to catch and will probably fail as a fishery...or 4 additional Conservation Officers?

[KCRIVERRAT]

I think a few great white sharks in Bennett Springs would be very interesting.

Great White's were introduced to the trout parks years ago. They disguise themselves donning waders on opening day.

[oneshot]

Guilty. I do take exotics seriously.

Fishing is supposed to be fun. And responsible. Beyond the joking, it's pretty clear a huge number of anglers don't think more about stocking exotics beyond what makes them happy in the short term. Watching this process from the side of a DNR, a lot of the public feedback they get is pressure to stock more and more and more (not to cut the DNR any slack either because they love their bread and circus stocking programs for all the love...and government jobs...it buys them).

But the bottom line is that shuffling exotics around is like playing Russian roulette. You never know when one of them is going to go off.

I take the northern snakeheads some knucklehead stocked in Arkansas seriously. I take Burmese pythons eating their way through South Florida seriously. Eurasian milfoil. Zebra mussels. Asian carp. Atlantic lamprey. All serious multi-million/billion dollar long term ecological disasters. I take the notion serious that we can slice and dice genes to get whatever frankenfish we want that suits our latest idea of "fun". I take the extinction of native species in the name of " fun", very very seriously...

...because right now the focus on short term gratification is the major barrier between sport fishers their rightful role as effective populist guardians of the rivers and lakes we love.

We've done good work with the pollution issues, but we're a part of the problem where exotics are concerned.

Sorry.

Makes me wonder if I want to take my Rifle this morning Fishing in case I see a Hog.

Hey there out there live with it.

oneshot

[Feathers and Fins]

I dont havre time this morning to discuss your entire post Tim but i will this evening. But to answer your last question. Possibly not COKES but Stripers would provide a estimated 16 to 20 million dollars to the economy based off other states findings in their stocking of those fish. 4 conservation officers would cost the state and estimated 320 thousand dollars. The stocking would supply the money for the four officers so My answer would be Stock the fish and higher the wardens.

You sound like many biologist ive dealt with in the past who are so worried about making the wrong choice they dont make a choice. The white seabass hatcheries in cali are a prime example, numerous biologist were terrified of doing it for possible disease and other unknow reprocushins and yet now people are catching seabass again and the population is increasing and many are touting it as a success. And yet a few are still saying it will destroy the wild fishery.

Sometimes you have to pull the trigger and make the hard choices.

[Tim Smith]

Makes me wonder if I want to take my Rifle this morning Fishing in case I see a Hog.

That might be a good idea as long as you're not taking piglets to release at the same time.

I'm willing to live with the exotics we have, but I don't see the wisdom in adding more or giving them the same status as native fish.

[Tim Smith]

Tim were do your stand on the Arkansas Trout issue? USFWS has defunded the Norfork National Fish Hatchery again. The pol's, trout guides, and dock owners are all up in arms about it. Do you think its possible for a sustainable wild trout fishery down there? Radical culture shift required of course....but possibe or not? My buddy Bob Heine seems to be the only one speaking in favor of wild fish down there.

I don't know enough about harvest rates or reproduction rates to know if this would work. If it could work, it would be worth a try.

[Quillback]

I know of at least one salmon run in Washington where wild returning kings that still have the adipose fin are intentionally being culled at the hatchery. The biologist at that facility specifically stated they were being removed to keep them from going upstream and establishing a run. That's great for job security at the hatchery and it probably pleases a lot of polluters who would otherwise need to clean up their act, but that shows a complete disregard for sustainability.

Waht hatchery is that? I'm fairly familiar with the salmon issues in WA State. There's probably another reason for removing those fish, they're unclipped but it doesn't mean they are native to that river system. Quite a few of the WA chinook runs are now composed of hatchery stock that became "wild" and displaced a river system's native run of Chinook, that could be one reason they are removing them. The Cedar river system, which flows out of Seattle's water reservoir does not pass Chinook up stream to the reservoir as they will die after spawning and contaminate the water supply. You can bet there's a more valid reason they are removing those fish than just not wanting them upstream on a whim or for someone's "job security".

Lake Chelan, in central WA is stuffed with introduced Lake Trout, no limits (they're trying to get rid of them), and on a good day you can catch 10-20, 5-20 lb. fish. Also an outstanding smallmouth lake (also introduced). The lake is 80 miles long, 20 feet of visibility and very scenic. Upper 2/3 of the lake is wilderness. Great place for a family vacation if any of you midwesterners want to take a vacation in WA. Nice kokanee and rainbows also.

[Quillback]

WA state is over run with "exotics". LM and SM bass, channel, blue and bullhead catfish. Yellow perch, bluegill, crappie. Walleye, carp, lake trout, brook trout. None of these fish are native, but are now well established and can never be erradicated. They do provide a sports fishery in some places where none would exist, but they have also contributed to a decline in native trout, salmon, and steelhead populations.

[Tim Smith]

I know of at least one salmon run in Washington where wild returning kings that still have the adipose fin are intentionally being culled at the hatchery. The biologist at that facility specifically stated they were being removed to keep them from going upstream and establishing a run. That's great for job security at the hatchery and it probably pleases a lot of polluters who would otherwise need to clean up their act, but that shows a complete disregard for sustainability.

Waht hatchery is that? I'm fairly familiar with the salmon issues in WA State. There's probably another reason for removing those fish, they're unclipped but it doesn't mean they are native to that river system. Quite a few of the WA chinook runs are now composed of hatchery stock that became "wild" and displaced a river system's native run of Chinook, that could be one reason they are removing them. The Cedar river system, which flows out of Seattle's water reservoir does not pass Chinook up stream to the reservoir as they will die after spawning and contaminate the water supply. You can bet there's a more valid reason they are removing those fish than just not wanting them upstream on a whim or for someone's "job security".

Lake Chelan, in central WA is stuffed with introduced Lake Trout, no limits (they're trying to get rid of them), and on a good day you can catch 10-20, 5-20 lb. fish. Also an outstanding smallmouth lake (also introduced). The lake is 80 miles long, 20 feet of visibility and very scenic. Upper 2/3 of the lake is wilderness. Great place for a family vacation if any of you midwesterners want to take a vacation in WA. Nice kokanee and rainbows also.

You're correct that these are not a native run of Kings. The ones without the adipose clip are probably returns from the few hatchery fish they allow to pass the wier and spawn in the river. However, there are no reservoirs on the system (I'm not going to name it because it's not fair to put a specific biologist's name in public) and the stated reason to kill off the wild fish is to keep a native run from starting. "Endangered Species Act" issues. A side issue might be that they are afraid the hatchery will get shut down if local interests are forced to reduce their erosion/pollution for the sake of the fish. It's pretty clear they're protecting the hatchery.

Fishing out those lake trout sounds like a nice vacation indeed.