New TU policy: No stocking over native trout

afishinado

afishinado

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
16,140
Location
Chester County, PA
Found this in the PA TU newsletter:

TU announces important policy on stocking over native trout populations

The National Leadership Council of Trout Unlimited was asked to conduct a survey regarding chapters or councils stocking non-native, hatchery trout in streams containing populations of native trout. At the 2011 Annual Meeting in Bend, Ore, the NLC discussed this, and the following resolutions were passed by the NLC, the Organizational Development Committee of the Board and the Board of Trustees. Hence, these resolutions affirm that it is TU policy that all chapters and councils are not to participate in the stocking of non-native trout in streams that contain native trout species (e.g. hatchery brown trout in streams with native brook trout).

The resolutions:

The National Leadership Council "RESOLVED, that the NLC is opposed to chapters or councils stocking of non-native hatchery trout on top of native trout populations."

The Organizational Development Committee of the Board considered this resolution and unanimously supported the NLC directive that all chapters and councils cannot participate in the stocking of non-native, hatchery trout over native trout.

Finally, the Board of Trustees considered the above resolutions and “RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of Trout Unlimited fully supports the NLC's directive to chapters and councils that no chapter or council can participate or support the stocking on non-native, hatchery trout in streams containing native trout.”



Link to source: http://www.patrout.org/
 
good! now we need the state to do the same!
 
This, is good news. It is usually local clubs that stock over natives around here.
 
Never could understand why TU did that. Glad they are stopping.
 
SBecker wrote:
Never could understand why TU did that. Glad they are stopping.

did what? Clarify?
 
First of all it is NOT a new policy, it its the basis for why TU was founded in 1959. Second the NLC was simply re-stating the obvious: TU is a Cold Water conservation organization.
Edit:
There are only 4 or 5 Chapters that run or cooperate with the Co-op Nurseries in PA. There are a few that do stock a ton of trout though which I find disturbing given that there are 67 counties in PA and all but 4 have at least one wild trout stream in them. There is no lack of trout streams that are impaired and money is being waste on stocking. I say let the PFBC take care of stocking and TU CHapters get down to the business of restoring trout streams. I'll say that this is my opinion and does not necessarily reflect the State Councils Policy.
State Council has always maintained a policy that Chapters should not be stocking trout, it has been the policy for years; probably since the Council was formed.
 
These sorts of proclamations don’t help.
While we’d all like to see an abatement of stocking over viable wild populations…blanket polices such as this that don’t reflect political and social reality merely demonstrate the problem when true believers run organizations. Think about it. If PA TU were to support this it would require the condemnation of the entire steelhead program because they’re non-native fish being stocked over lake trout. Every TU member who volunteers to stock an ATW that might have (or had) a brook trout would be condemned.
It’s just not practicable and is only worth lip service. One-size-fits-all policies are rarely worthwhile in the long run and take away from state chapters the flexibility to tailor goals and policies to their respective conditions.
 
Fishidiot, maybe misinterpreted the statement. It says "that all chapters and councils cannot participate in the stocking of non-native, hatchery trout over native trout."
It says nothing about streams that may have had native fish.
What's brought this on is that many chapters are stocking streams that have wild or native trout in them and this has always been against the policy and reason TU was founded, it's not new.
My interpretation is that chapters are being given the re-affrimation of why TUwas formed in part because it is and has always been against TU policy, both National and State Council to stock fish over wild or native populations of trout.
My question is why do Chapters inist that they stock fish at all, there is no justification for stocking trout anywhere in PAby TU Chapters given that there are so many impaired trout streams in PA. My opinion not state councils or nationals.
As for the Lake Erie Steelhead program I for one have always been opposed to the program on grounds that it put a non-native fish in streams and the lake that have and impact on native fish, ir lake trout and bait fish. My opinion.
The bottom line is we are supposed to protect cold water fisheries not stock browns and rainbows. Let the state agencies stock fish. One reason for the re-affirmation is that many state agencies, PFBC in particular, justify stocking over native trout by saying TU Chapters stock over native fish and run co-op nurseries. I've personanlly heard this come from PFBC many times when talking with fish commission employees.
How can TU support not stocking over native/wild populations when our own chapters stock over wild/native populations?
 
Chaz wrote:
Fishidiot, maybe misinterpreted the statement. It says "that all chapters and councils cannot participate in the stocking of non-native, hatchery trout over native trout."
It says nothing about streams that may have had native fish.

I don't think I misinterpreted this at all. It says what it says. If this policy were to be adopted all stocking of browns and bows (and steelhead) would have to cease in any waters where a brook trout may be alive. It doesn't say "should not," it says "cannot." I stand by my claim that this is not practical.
When statements like this are promulgated they serve to reinforce the ideals of the organization but do no service to foot soldiers in the field. We all love wild trout but this sort of position takes flexibility away from those of us who love TU and are trying at the local level to work with multifarious organizations including state agencies, local sportsmen's clubs, local conservancies and watershed alliances.....and find a delicate balance in the best interests of wild trout. Compromise is required. Such positions serve to alienate TU, drives away traditional trout fishermen who we should seek to bring into our fold; may cause members who enjoy fishing for stockies and enjoy stocking them to quit the organization, and pits TU against other sportsmen and state agencies with whom we ought to be negotiating rather than condemning.
 
Maurice wrote:
SBecker wrote:
Never could understand why TU did that. Glad they are stopping.

did what? Clarify?

Stocked hatchery trout over a native population. I brought this subject up when I was still with the chain gang. We would catch hell from some of you guys about stocking, yet the TU's would be doing the same thing in some areas.
 
I am on the TU National committee that will be defining this policy. It only applies to stocking non-native trout over self-sustaining native trout populations. Whether we should consider domesticated, hatchery-raised native trout species as stocked or native is a question I have asked. I personally do not think so. Genetically and behaviorally they bear little resemblance to native trout bred and born in the wild.

Many states, especially those in the East, stock hatchery trout over naturally sustaining trout populations. Many of these stocked waters also hold native trout species. And Chaz has pretty much defined TU's position on stocking over wild trout populations.

Until recently, stocking hatchery trout in streams was thought to be a form of conservation. Many sportsmen's organizations and anglers still think it is. But 30 years or so ago data showing the negative effects of stocking over wild trout populations began to surface. It confirmed what the founders of TU in 1959 already knew. "July 2009 marked the 50th anniversary of TU's founding on the banks of the Au Sable River near Grayling, Michigan. The 16 fishermen who gathered at the home of George Griffith were united by their love of trout fishing, and by their growing discontent with the state's practice of stocking its waters with "cookie cutter trout"—catchable-sized hatchery fish. Convinced that Michigan's trout streams could turn out a far superior fish if left to their own devices, the anglers formed a new organization: Trout Unlimited... dedicated to ensuring that wild and native trout populations were allowed to thrive, as nature intended." That is the history, but we have seen a lot of "Mission Drift" since TU was founded.

So now we are trying to get back to the root mission of the organization - "To conserve, protect and restore North America's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds." There are many, including some TU members, who will be opposed to this. The tradition of stocking is deeply engrained in the trout angling culture. We are not trying to change that, but do believe that TU should be leading the way toward protecting our native trout resources.

Stocking of hatchery trout has its place, but not in coldwater streams that still hold self-sustaining native trout populations. To the extent possible, we should be restoring what was lost and protecting what is left. That was TU's mission in 1959 and still is.
 
There are not many PA TU chapters that have coop hatcheries. And most of their stocking is in stream sections that are not wild trout waters.

If there are some currently doing some stocking in streams on the reproduction list, it shouldn't be that hard for them to make the adjustment, and simply stock the trout in non-wild trout waters.

 
troutbert wrote:
And most of their stocking is in stream sections that are not wild trout waters.
If there are some currently doing some stocking in streams on the reproduction list, it shouldn't be that hard for them to make the adjustment, and simply stock the trout in non-wild trout waters.

If only it were so easy. Just speaking for Adams County (where I live).....there are ten ATWs. This is a county with relatively poor trout habitat in which the streams get warm in summer. Of the ten ATWs, eight are on the Natural Repro List (one isn't listed because the mouth is in MD, although it too has some wild fish). If we were to follow the TU National policy, we'd have to cease almost all stocking in Adams County. It simply isn't realistic and for the local TU chapter to even suggest such a policy would cause a huge backlash and tear the chapter to pieces.
The current PFBC policy of not stocking Class A sections is a much better and more realistic policy.
 
Generally the problem isn't with chapters, it is what is perceived by various State Agencies. As I said, I've heard many times from PFBC people, how can you ask the stat to stop stocking over wild populations when your chapters are out there doing it. You cannot be a nimby about this. Chapters should not be stocking fish anyway as it is counter to the mission to "Conserve, Protect, and Restore, Cold Water fishes and their habitats."
Chapters could just as easily restore habitat in the streams of Adams County.
There is nothing in a Chapters Bylaws that says it's a fishing club. IF you are involved in your local chapter then you know you just voted to the updated bylaws. Those bylaws specifically state TU is a conservation organization and that chapters will conform to the mission and policies of TU.
 
Fishidiot wrote:
troutbert wrote:
And most of their stocking is in stream sections that are not wild trout waters.
If there are some currently doing some stocking in streams on the reproduction list, it shouldn't be that hard for them to make the adjustment, and simply stock the trout in non-wild trout waters.

If only it were so easy. Just speaking for Adams County (where I live).....there are ten ATWs. This is a county with relatively poor trout habitat in which the streams get warm in summer. Of the ten ATWs, eight are on the Natural Repro List (one isn't listed because the mouth is in MD, although it too has some wild fish). If we were to follow the TU National policy, we'd have to cease almost all stocking in Adams County. It simply isn't realistic and for the local TU chapter to even suggest such a policy would cause a huge backlash and tear the chapter to pieces.
The current PFBC policy of not stocking Class A sections is a much better and more realistic policy.

How far down is Conewago Creek on the reproduction list?

Wouldn't that be a good option for stocking?

Edit: National TU's policy states NATIVE trout, so that would apply to streams with brook trout populations, not brown trout.

So, how much of a change would that require in Adams County? If there is currently stocking in stretches that hold native brookies, would just shifting that stocking to stretches that do not hold native brookies be that big of a change?

 
troutbert wrote:
How far down is Conewago Creek on the reproduction list?

Wouldn't that be a good option for stocking?

Edit: National TU's policy states NATIVE trout, so that would apply to streams with brook trout populations, not brown trout.

So, how much of a change would that require in Adams County? If there is currently stocking in stretches that hold native brookies, would just shifting that stocking to stretches that do not hold native brookies be that big of a change?

The Natural Repro list does not indicate where (how far up or down) the stream has wild fish. This is why the streams are listed by the county where the mouth is located. Conewago is listed in York County but the section with wild trout is, generally, in the headwaters in Adams County. The stocked sections of Conewago have very few wild trout - there are some and they're brown trout but brookies exist too in the headwaters. Do we drop Conewago from the stocking list because of the (remote) chance that we might disrupt a handful of brookies?
Of the ten streams that are ATWs here in Adams, only three have what I would describe as viable wild brookie populations and only two have them where they're currently stocked. Of course, these sections should be removed from the stocking list (which would be hard enough to do by itself). Furthermore, these two creeks in question are stocked with brook trout only. They shouldn't be stocked at all IMO.
Broadly speaking my concern with this policy is the rigid language and implied condemnation of any TU chapter which just happens to sponsor a kids rodeo, or organize members for stocking, or seeks to restore stocked streams or anything that might involve stocking non native trout in a waterway with a tiny population of brookies. Protecting wild trout is the goal and certainly should be supported in spirit. To attempt to codify rigid language that fails to recognize the reality that local chapters live in.....doesn't help IMO.
 
Fishidiot wrote;

"Think about it. If PA TU were to support this it would require the condemnation of the entire steelhead program because they’re non-native fish being stocked over lake trout."

This is a great comment and wouldn't it also hold true to many of the streams that PAF&BC, and the coopertives, stock that had no rainbow or brown trout before fish culturists of the late 19th century decided to stock to augment the diminishing population of native brook trout?
 
The natural reproduction list does show the upstream and downstream boundaries:

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/trout_repro.pdf

It doesn't break down brookies vs browns, but you could find out from the PFBC area fisheries manager if any of the areas you currently stock hold native brookies.

And many of your members probably know where the brookies are and aren't.

You said there are few wild trout in the stocked section of Conewago Creek. And the few that are there are browns, not brookies. So there's no issue there.
 
wbranch wrote:
Fishidiot wrote;

"Think about it. If PA TU were to support this it would require the condemnation of the entire steelhead program because they’re non-native fish being stocked over lake trout."

This is a great comment and wouldn't it also hold true to many of the streams that PAF&BC, and the coopertives, stock that had no rainbow or brown trout before fish culturists of the late 19th century decided to stock to augment the diminishing population of native brook trout?

Re: Lake Erie. The lake trout are a hatchery supported fishery.

Re: Streams that used to hold native brookies. They are asking TU chapters to end stocking over native trout (brookies in PA), where they exist now.

 
troutbert wrote;

"They are asking TU chapters to end stocking over native trout (brookies in PA), where they exist now."

Okay, I understand - if a stream may have had wild brook trout at one time but no longer supports them then it is permissable to supplant those trout fisheries with non native trout such as rainbows and browns?
 
Back
Top