Native Fish Coalition has a problem: stocking

Click here to read more

Trout stocking is fine, but only where native trout don’t exist.—Ted

Note: NFC was not interviewed as part of this article. And while we agree with much of what Lawson says, he is not a member of NFC. Below is a letter we sent to the newspaper to set things straight:

Hello

I am responding on behalf of Native Fish Coalition in regard to an editorial that ran in today's paper entitled, "Native Fish Coalition has a problem: stocking."  While we appreciate you addressing this important issue, we would like to clarify a few things. 

First is that the title is misleading and does not represent Native Fish Coalition's (NFC) formal and well documented position on stocking.  While NFC is rarely in favor of stocking, we are only actively opposed to it when it is being done over wild native fish.  The one place we do support stocking is when it is being done as part of a native fish restoration project, which is unfortunately rarely the case. 

As far as the North Country Angler (NCA) sponsored Saco River stocking goes, NFC's issue is that it is being done over wild native fish, brook trout.  It also involves nonnative brown trout of European origin which pose a bigger threat to wild native brook trout than other species of nonnative trout including rainbow trout.  This is due to their minnow intensive feeding habits, fall spawning, and the fact that they can and do hybridize with brook trout.  The other issue we have is that after Saco Valley Trout Unlimited was instructed to stop the decades old Saco River chapter sponsored stocking program by national Trout Unlimited, and Angers, a member per the article in question and documented sponsor of the chapter on their website resumed it himself.   And for the record, Corey Lawson is not a member of Native Fish Coalition nor has he been authorized to speak for us.  While we agree with some of what he said, we do not agree with all of it.  In fact, I can find no quote in the article attributed to NFC, the titled party, outside of those culled from our website.  I also called around our organization and cannot find anyone who was interviewed for the article. 

I would also challenge Angers' assertion that the decline of wild native brook trout in the Mount Washington Valley is primarily the result of habitat degradation as it is misleading and incomplete.  There are other factors that have contributed to the precipitous decline in wild native brook trout in the region, including stocking and angler exploitation.  And while dams and can be a problem, they have very little to do with the situation in the valley.  As for riprap, while bad for trout this has effected only a percentage of the available habitat.  

Angers' statement, “Our state fish [brook trout] is strong. It’s not like our state fish is going to disappear anytime soon.”, is likewise misleading.  Wild native brook trout are already all but gone from most large rivers, lakes and ponds in New Hampshire, as well as many sections of stream that are now home to primarily stocked fish, including nonnative browns and rainbows.  What is left is mostly small headwater streams representing a significant loss to date.  

I would also argue that Angers' defense of state-sponsored stocking as a requirement for meeting angler expectations is flawed and why we are having such difficulty influencing any positive change.  New Hampshire Fish and Game (NHF&G) is responsible for protecting the resource, not just appeasing anglers.  They are under no mandate or obligation to provide more fish than a water can produce, or allow anglers to harvest more fish than their license pays for.

Angers' goes on to defend so-called "supplemental" stocking.  Supplemental means "in addition to", and in this case that implies wild native brook trout.  The science against stocking over wild fish is broad, easy to obtain, and virtually unchallenged.  Most experts say that it actually has the opposite effect of what is intended by suppressing natural reproduction.    

And Angers' statement that "If people weren’t catching fish, we wouldn’t have people buying the licenses and then we don’t have the money to protect habitat." is likewise flawed as very little license revenue is used for habitat work, with most of it going to stocking.  In fact, every dollar spent on stocking is $2 lost to habitat work as there are many matching grants available for habitat work and virtually none available for recreational stocking.    

I would however support Lawson's statement that there is very little science involved in stocking in the Mount Washington Valley.  In fact, there were over 30,000 "surplus" fish stocked in the White Mountains region in 2018 alone.  These are hatchery excess and not part of any water specific management plan.  Fish are being stocked over wild fish routinely and often arbitrarily. 

In fairness and in the interest of accuracy, NFC would like to see some form of retraction as to our implied input and involvement in the article as we apparently had none.