New TU policy: No stocking over native trout

[Maurice]

Troutbert is right. This is not an issue with Adams TU David.

Its a good policy at its root. If TU chapters are participating in the stocking over documented native brook trout pops they are in violation of the policy. If members of TU are aware of Native Brook Trout in or near areas stocked by their chapter members they should speak up about it to the Chapter participating or to the State Council.

I don't believe this is an issue in PA.

To suggest that TU is not a "fishing club" is ridiculous. If so take the trout off the logo....and perhaps out of the name. 99% of the members of TU are trout fishermen. Trout fishermen are the main recruiting base of TU national and local chapters. The Mission is Conserve, Protect and Restore North Americas Coldwater Fisheries.

If Chapters residing in regions where wild trout are not abundant enjoy the recreation of a stocked fishery thats fine in my book. If this is what it takes to energize members toward local mission goals thats great.

Not all chapters sit on top of tailwaters or limestone streams or in and around mountain freestone streams with abundant wild trout populations.

TU chapters involved in stocking are doing productive things in marginal watersheds in addition to stocking trout. Lets not forget that without access public fishing doesn't exist. Stocking ensures access and that benefits fishermen. Fishermen are the most likely population to become TU members.

Policy has to be based on tangible facts. This one is. Its not directly restrictive to the TU chapters in PA. Measurable populations is the only way to create the line. Words like "viable" wild trout populations and "self-sustaining" are nebulous and unenforcible until there is an measurable number attached.

It would behoove PATrout to pick that number and create policy within its ranks and let the fallout happen. These claims that their positions with the PF&BC are not standing up because of TU chapters is baloney. If the F&BC has Co-op nurseries sponsored by TU chapters that are stocking over Class A populations the responsibility is on the PF&BC to stop it. Its just not happening.

As a member of a TU chapter that has a Co-op nursery that stocks trout in ATWs only I encourage the State Council to pursue that mission on those grounds. If they try to rationalize it by stating that TU does it, tell them to provide the data on the chapters doing it and act on that data.

 

[jdaddy]

Well put Maurice. Fact is that this position appears to me to be yet another western US issue. TU is absolutely infatuated with things west of the Mississippi. They are fighting battles there where they are poisoning non-native trout to re-establish native fish. Where should we start with that in PA? We should probably start with Big Spring.

 

[troutbert]

wbranch wrote:
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?

The actual policy statement is shown in the original post.

 

[Fishidiot]

Oopps – my bad. The list does indeed mention boundaries. I seemed to have been under the impression that once a stream is documented as having wild trout, then the entire stream is considered a “wild trout” stream (hence listing the streams by county of mouth).

Anyway….

My intent in using Adams County was merely to illustrate by example the problematic nature of rigid, one-size-fits-all policies and the difficulty of adhering to that policy at the local level.

 

[Ramcatt]

i have never given a dime to TU and really never plan to...

they blindly protect native fish without a thought of wild sustaining populations
quite ironic coming from grayling

also
what is TUs stance about stocking over native populations of smallmouth?

 

[tomgamber]

Ramcatt wrote:


also
what is TUs stance about stocking over native populations of smallmouth?

The smallmouth bass is native to the upper and middle Mississippi River basin, the Saint Lawrence River–Great Lakes system, and up into the Hudson Bay basin...

BTW that would be Smallmouth Bass Unlimited's problem.

Country's population has shifted south and west. Not a ton of trout to the south so...East natives have been pretty much spanked. If that is their agenda..west is where the front is. They have drilling issues out there too. They go where the money is.

 

[Ramcatt]

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=396

there are lots of "trout states" in the native range...including PA, WV, MI,TN

stocking over native fish... brook trout or smallmouth is not something i support... and hypocritical for a group "conserving coldwater fisheries" to pick and choose

BTW that would be Smallmouth Bass Unlimited's problem.

???
and brook trout are covered by Char Unlimited?

 

[Chaz]

SMB are not native to anywhere in PA east of the Allegheny basin. Plus everywhere they exit they benefit by having trout in the headwater streams. Before SMB were stocked everywhere in PA There were brookies in those drainages.
It's interesting that peolpe associate TU with stocking fish when the organization was founded because the people that organized TU thought that stocking was hurting trout populations.
BTW Graying were native to MI. For some strange reason brook trout were rare in lower MI but there were plenty of them in Upper MI and tributaries to L. Superior, as Salters.
LL Salmon were native in the Great Lakes and are pretty much absent now,in part because no one tried to restore them once the population took a nose dive.
If they had been restored to the Erie Tribs instead of stocking non natives no one would care about steelhead.
Again, this is not new it has been TU's policy since it's inception, and it doesn't affect many streams at all. Maybe a handful. What I can't believe is the flack this is causing among members.
It should be no surprise that two of the more recent chapters that folded were chapters that were involved with coop hatcheries or had members trying to get the chapter involved with a coop.
This is not a policy that is aimed at the West it has nothing to do with that.

 

[Fishidiot]

Not to be too much of a nitpicker here.....

It should be noted that the policy states that TU cannot stock non-native trout (I'm assuming this means all salmonids) over populations of native trout. It doesn't qualify that the native population should be "self-sustaining" or "viable" or some similar language that allows for establishing biomass of fish. If a wild brook trout exists in the stream, it cannot be stocked with browns or 'bows here in PA. Perhaps one could interpret the notion that stocking of browns/bows downstream of where the brookie might live as an acceptable alternative but this too is a gray area in a very rigid policy.
Again, I'm not against the spirit of this policy - simply the rigid language and implied condemnation of a state council or local chapter that might somehow be supporting stocking of non-native fishes in waters that might have brook trout.

 

[Ramcatt]

It's interesting that peolpe associate TU with stocking fish when the organization was founded because the people that organized TU thought that stocking was hurting trout populations.

in a watershed that is sustained by non-native fish over a native population... which is completely contradictory to this "new" ruling.

...This is not a policy that is aimed at the West...

???
so there is no concern for any other native trout populations?
just brook trout in the east?

 

[rrt]

I think this is a difficult position. I am certainly in favor of no stocking where wild, not just native, trout can take care of their own population needs. But, I also believe that TU chapters can maintain and use hatchery fish to support fishing in streams where wild trout cannot spawn successfully, for whatever reason. The local TU chapter has done that around here, though I know that some members have expressed the desire to get out of the stocking game -- and the chapter may have done that in the past year during a time when I have become less active than I had been. At any rate, I do not believe that this is or should be an all or nothing policy, and I hope that people are reasonable in their approach to the situation.

 

[afishinado]

In my opinion, TU’s Job1 on a national, state and local level, is and should be to conserve, protect and restore native trout populations in coldwater streams and rivers. In the east, brook trout population have been decimated by destruction of habitat, pollution, and the introduction of non-native trout. The same goes for the cutthroat in the west. Now is a time to draw a line in the sand and try to reverse or even just halt the decline of native trout populations.

In PA, I am not a proponent of destroying wild trout (browns and rainbows) to reintroduce native trout (brookies), but I believe we must draw a line in the sand to reverse the trend of pushing brookies further and further up into the headwaters of our PA coldwater streams. TU’s Job 1 should be to protect the few remaining streams still holding native trout and do what we can to restore native trout to our coldwater streams. Coldwater streams holding viable populations of wild, non-native trout should also be protected, but never to the detriment of native trout.

The directive stating that chapters “cannot” stock over native fish is in line with the mission of TU, and is a clarification of policy to achieve the TU mission, “to conserve, protect and restore North America's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds.”

As for stocking trout, I believe it should only be done in marginal streams not capable of sustaining native or wild trout. The State seems to have that covered, but I see no problem with a TU chapter can become involved with stocking such streams as long as efforts have been and are being made to conserve and enhance the coldwater streams for native and wild trout in their region.

 

[troutbert]

Does anyone have examples of where this will create a hardship for TU chapters?

There is probably very little stocking by TU chapters in PA over brookies now. And shifting that little bit to non-brook trout waters should be very simple.

 

[Chaz]

Ramcat, there are no other "Native" trout in the PA. Both Browns and Rainbows are introduced speices. The only other slmonids in PA that are native would be Land-locked Salmon(Salo Salar Sebago) and Lake Trout.
They are not saying you cannot proect wild trout. I think the jist of it though I haven't been involved in Nationals decision to focus on native trout, is to get chapters away from depending on stocking. Get them out working on wild trout streams where there is a need to work.
Like I said in an earlier post, there are 67 counties in PA, of which 63 have at least 1 wild trout stream. Chapters should be working on wild trout streams not stocking fish. It IS the agencies job to stock fish, not T. U.'s

 

[wbranch]

jdaddy wrote:

"They (TU) are fighting battles there where they are poisoning non-native trout to re-establish native fish. "

I have read articles where these comments were voiced. If TU wants to do this, and somehow had the lobbying strength to achieve the goal, many of the towns in Montana and other western states would be severely impacted by the loss of rainbows and browns in rivers such as the Madison - which to my knowledge supports no cutthroat but does support a large population of native mountain whitefish. The Yellowstone does have cuts but people don't travel from all over the USA to float and wade that river for cutts. (Except of course in YNP where cutts used to be the only trout above the Yellowstone Falls.)

 

[jdaddy]

wbranch wrote:
jdaddy wrote:

"They (TU) are fighting battles there where they are poisoning non-native trout to re-establish native fish. "

I have read articles where these comments were voiced. If TU wants to do this, and somehow had the lobbying strength to achieve the goal, many of the towns in Montana and other western states would be severely impacted by the loss of rainbows and browns in rivers such as the Madison - which to my knowledge supports no cutthroat but does support a large population of native mountain whitefish. The Yellowstone does have cuts but people don't travel from all over the USA to float and wade that river for cutts. (Except of course in YNP where cutts used to be the only trout above the Yellowstone Falls.)

Slow down now. No one is suggesting a non-trout native fish matters. LOL.

 

[jdaddy]

afishinado wrote:
In my opinion, TU’s Job1 on a national, state and local level, is and should be to conserve, protect and restore native trout populations in coldwater streams and rivers.

And if they want to get into controversial politics, how about a strong position and fight on access rights!

 

[Ramcatt]

Ramcat, there are no other "Native" trout in the PA

go back and read my posts and please show me where i said this???
the conversation is about TU... not PATU

I'm well aware historical ranges and species of fish
thats why i find this blind "rule" to be quite idiotic

...is to get chapters away from depending on stocking. Get them out working on wild trout streams where there is a need to work....

no i see it as saying don't stock in waters with native trout
but by all means throw some bucket fish over wild sustaining populations

 

[troutbert]

The statement from TU asks that TU chapters not stock hatchery trout over native trout populations.

That's ALL that it says. It does not state, or imply, or suggest anything beyond that.

So, in PA and other eastern states, if a chapter is stocking hatchery trout over brook trout, it asks that they stop doing that.

In some of the western states, if they are stocking over native cutthroat, it asks that they stop doing that.

That really that is a very modest proposal. I don't think there is much of it going on now, and where it is, it should be fairly easy to make the change.

If you read through the thread, you find arguments against all sorts of other positions, which are not in the statement, or implied or suggested by it.

It's good to do a reality check once in a while, and look at the actual statement, in the original post, so that you are discussing the real thing. Rather than some phantoms of the imagination.