Should a 'Wild Trout' Stream be Stocked?*

As I would be banned if I posted my thoughts about how, " it's all about jobs and the taxes they generate," I will not post anything on this *&^% subject!

Thanks to all who have replied in support of Keeping it Wild on the Battenkill.

As AgMD pointed out, the state is currently in the public opinion gathering phase -- which means now is the time we need you to fire off a quick email to [email:399c4]Wayne.Laroche@state.vt.us[/email:399c4], Commissioner of VT F&W. It needn't be fancy, just tell him that you think the BK should continue to be managed as a Wild Trout Stream, with the focus kept on real river restoration sans stocking.

This public opinion gathering phase will probably go on for another few weeks and we'll be advised of a series of public meetings to be held in Aug/Sept, open to all, and meant as an opportunity to come and discuss the issue, and prove our point. Needless to say, we're not happy about the fact that the state is making this more a matter of public opinion or who makes the most noise. If it were up to us, we'd have the state manage the river and the resource based on science with the goal being real, positive and sustainable long-term river restoration.

Thanks to all for your continued support, and please drop by our site for more information on this issue, email addresses of who you can contact to voice your opinion, and of course, to add your name to our petition opposing stocking the BK.

[url=http://www.TUSWVT.org:399c4]Southwestern Vermont Chapter of Trout Unlimited[/url:399c4]
[url=http://www.TUSWVT.org:399c4]www.TUSWVT.org[/url:399c4]

I say absolutely do not stock the stream.

It's pretty clear that everyone is against stocking the river.
I've actually never given much thought to the issues surrounding stocking. I always assumed that most heavily fished rivers were stocked.
Why is stocking bad? (assuming that you don't introduce disease.) Are hatchery fish inferior to wild fish? I'm not experienced enough to tell the difference between a farm fish and a wild fish. No doubt they taste different, but if you're releasing them, you wouldn't care about that.

Would folks have a different opinion if they were stocking the Batten Kill with brown trout instead of rainbows?

From reading the whole thread, it appears that stocking is just a band-aid solution and the real problem on the Batten Kill is that the river is getting used by lots of folks for various recreational purposes that may be detrimental to the fish habitat. Is the ultimate goal to close the river to boating? Are folks against stocking because artificially inflating the number of fish through stocking will mask the greater habitat issues and then the managers will never have to address the damage caused by river recreation? What if it's politically impossible to implement an effective river restoration plan, and the habitat continues to decline, (along with the wild fish population?) Would stocking be preferable to a fishless river?

I guess I don't understand the overwhelmingly negative response to stocking the river. In the places I fish (Colorado and Wyoming) I have no idea if the creeks and lakes are stocked or not, and it really doesn't seem to make a difference to how much I enjoy fishing.

I'm a complete newbie to fly fishing culture, so I could use some education here. Can somebody please explain why stocking is bad?

pkb,
Thanks for posting the Email link....It was far from poetry...but I'm hoping that my voice will be at least heard!

Kai,
The best all inclusive information is on the SWVTTU web page which you will see linked above. For a short, incomplete explanation -- here goes--
Vt has not stocked the Battenkill for 30+ years. We now have a population of brook and brown trout specifically designed through 30+ years of natural selection to thrive in this specific river.
This "wild" fishery has been stressed in recent years due to a number of environmental factors, chief among them the limited amount of protective cover. There are numerous fish in the less than 10" range, and where ever there is cover there are larger fish. The biologists tell us that as these fish grow beyond the 10" neighborhood they become dependent on cover for their survival. Programs have begun to introduce cover, ( woody debris) largely thoroughly the efforts and funding of non-governmental organizations. It is hoped that these efforts will result in increased numbers of larger fish.
The river has achieved a balance point, where the current population is in balance with, and limited by the resources available, particularly cover.
The proposed stocking of sterile hybrid trout is certain to increase pressure on the "wild "trout population due to the limited resources, particularly cover, and will do nothing to promote the health of the existing fishery.
There exists a good body of research which shows that stocked fish, reared in proximity w/ hundreds of other fish in a confined hatchery environment will be more aggressive than wild fish. They will out-compete with wild fish for resources ( cover in this case). This research also shows that where hatchery fish are introduced into a wild fishery there is ultimately a net loss in fish population. The introduced fish will not have the genetic makeup and instincts needed in the specific new environment. In as much as the stocked fish here will be sterile they are not expected to add anything to the long term health of the fishery.
This plan runs contrary to, and will put at risk the last 30+ years of wild management. It runs contrary to the best science available and contrary the the states own research on this river.
There are MANY places in close proximity to the Battenkill where hatchery fish can be caught.
One of the drawing points of the Battenkill as a "destination" fishing spot is the opportunity to fish over wild trout.
Stocking carries the risk of introducing disease ( whirling disease is one example of a stocked disease) and parasites.
Our objective is to further develop the river resources and trout population, perhaps to a point where the keeping of fish will once again be allowed. Stocking puts this objective at risk.
Each of these points is deserving of an exploration far beyond the scope of this board and far beyond my abilities, but I hope I have addressed any questions you may have and i hope you will take advantage of the TU page which will do this subject the justice it deserves.
AgMD

What do you mean 'sterile' trout? Hybrids? Tiger trout? First I have heard of stocking of sterile straight Browns.
By the way:
The New York limit on trout is going to be lowered to 3 trout, down from 5, beginning in October. Not that a lot of people read the rules. Many think the limit is still 10 ! No game wardens to check anymore. I've seen one conservation officer in New York in the past 20 years and have never been asked to see my license. Budget cuts 8=10 years ago just about elliminated them.

I think the only time I would be in favor of stocking, in any area, is when the fish aren't naturally reproducing on their own.

The proposal is to stock sterile rainbows. These are a sterile hybrid. How do they do it? I don't know. But they say they are. The notion is that the rainbows could be caught and kept but browns and brookies would be C&R. Any chance folks will know the difference?
There are virtually no wardens on the river.
I believe lots of browns and brookies will end up on the grill.
AgMD

lol,,,, saw a similar thing out here with a certain salmon,,, boy, the 'one you could keep',,, seemed the only kind that anyone ever caught... sad.