New FAQ - Stocking in Support of Wild Refuges

A relatively new topic that has been in the press lately, and gaining traction, NFC felt it necessary to take a formal position on so-called wild refuges. We did so by adding a new entry in our FAQ.

Q: WHAT IS NATIVE FISH COALITION'S POSITION IN REGARD TO STOCKING IN SUPPORT OF CREATING “WILD REFUGES” FOR AT-RISK FISH?

A:  In some cases, at-risk fish are moved to waters where they are not native, including historically fishless waters, to try to save them. These are often referred to as wild refuges.  Wild refuges have saved a number of species, subspecies, and unique populations, including Aurora trout and greenback cutthroat.  In the case of the former it was planned; in the case of the latter, it was by accident.  As a rule, NFC is opposed to the introduction of nonnative fish as they compete with wild native fish and other lifeforms for food and space, can prey on them, and disrupt or suppress natural reproduction. This includes historically fishless waters. We are also very concerned with regard to messaging, as nonnative fish pose the biggest immediate threat to our wild native fish.  If we want anglers to stop moving fish around, we need to lead by example, and introducing fish into waters where they were not native, for any reason, works against that. NFC also believes that if we do so, the surrogate water should be closed to fishing, as some will see it as self-serving. While NFC is generally opposed to wild refuges involving nonnative fish, our position is not absolute, and we will look at things on a case-by-case basis. NFC sees wild refuges as a last resort, and something that should not be taken lightly. We believe that wild refuges should be reserved for species, subspecies, and unique life forms that are at imminent risk of extirpation or extinction.  Where exactly that line is drawn is subjective and open to debate.