* Also posted to the Conservation BB under the subject: "Wild Trout Stream (mis)Management"

Consider a stream that has demonstrated the ability to support a naturally reproducing population of wild brook & brown trout. (In fact, it's 'Class A' trout water in some stretches.)

Add to that the fact that the stream is lacking significant in-stream cover, as determined by 5 years of state-sponsored Fish & Wildlife research.

If you were charged with managing this as one of your state's only 5 remaining Wild Trout Streams, and you thought significant real river restoration work (as planned to begin this summer/fall) could help the wild trout population begin to tick upward and rebuild, would you jeapordize the past 5 years worth of scientific research (and who knows how much taxpayer $) and add a previously unaccounted for wild-card into the mix? Wouldn't you be concerned that the findings of your research would be somehow skewed by this new variable?

Would you be willing to throw some hatchery raised rainbows into the mix just to appease some of the vocal locals who say 'Enough of this science *&%$, I want to catch some fish in my backyard!'?

What if that stream held a special place in American fly fishing history?

The Battenkill for instance.

That's what we're up against right now.

-- [url=http://www.TUSWVT.org:d3d63]Southwestern Vermont Chapter of Trout Unlimited[/url:d3d63]

Please help us make our point to the VT F&W folks. Visit our site for more details, contact info & an online petition supporting real river restoration, without the stocking part.... Thanks in advance for your support.

BTW -- There are now more big, beautiful wild browns in the BK (thanks to a 5 year test period of no-kill regs) despite the reputation it has justifiably earned as being a tough river to fish. For evidence, check out some of the photos in our gallery, and on Mike_D's site: http://battenkill.tripod.com!