Wild Refuges, we wish it were that simple...
A native Yellowstone cutthroat from Wyoming. (Diana Mallard)
“What should the criteria be for determining what should be done, when, and where? Who should define these criteria? Should the rules be the same for life history strategies, strains, subspecies, and species?”
NFC was recently publicly challenged by a former board member in regard to our positions pertaining to so-called “wild refuges,” as well as a specific proposal to create one in what was a historically fishless section of stream in Montana.
The project, Buffalo Creek just outside of Yellowstone National Park, appears to be stalled out due to permitting issues in regard to the use of chemical reclamation in a designated Wilderness Area. Various conservation groups have opposed the project stating numerous concerns.
When asked to support the project, NFC decided to step back and look at the big picture first. Prior to taking a position in regard to a specific project, we took the time to develop a formal policy on wild refuges. Like all NFC policies, it is published in our FAQ for public dissemination:
As noted above, NFC does not claim to have all the answers here, nor should anyone else, as it’s just not that simple. Wild refuges need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, with everyone involved willing to listen to concerns, answer questions, and concede ground when concession is needed to get the job done.
Once we had a formal policy in place, which we feel is pragmatic and while with caveat, and leaves the door open to stocking nonnative fish, including in historically fishless waters in extreme cases, we took a look at the specific project, including a line-by-line review of the 85-page proposal.
While the primary goal of the project, to remove nonnative rainbow trout that were leaking into native cutthroat water resulting in hybridization, was fully within our policy, including the use of chemical reclamation and mechanical means in a designated Wilderness Area to make it happen, there were a couple of things in the proposal that were in potential conflict with NFC’s stated policy.
According to the proposal, the stream above a natural falls was historically fishless, as were some of the tributaries. Rainbow trout were introduced decades ago to provide opportunity for anglers, and the headwater lake was popular with backcountry guides. Once the rainbows were removed, the stream is to be stocked with cutthroat, which while native to the watershed were not native above a natural waterfall.
While clearly stressed, NFC did not feel that Yellowstone cutthroat were “at imminent risk of extirpation or extinction.” With what is said to be over 300 miles of downstream habitat that would benefit by the removal of nonnative rainbows from Buffalo Creek, including lower Slough Creek, Lamar River, Soda Butte Creek, Pebble Creek, lower Buffalo Creek, Cache Creek, lower Yellowstone River, etc., we just didn’t feel it met our criteria.
According to the reclamation proposal, “Yellowstone cutthroat trout have declined substantially in distribution and abundance and now occupy 44% of their historically occupied habitat range wide.” While this represents a substantial loss, there are species of fish that are far more at risk of extinction. In fact, at a 56% decline, Yellowstone cutthroat are not in much worse shape than brook trout which are said to have been entirely lost in 60% of their native range..
“More natural than conservation hatcheries, these natural surrogate waters are not without their own risks. And the biggest risk of all could be government agencies misusing them.”
NFC was also concerned that the refuge would be open to recreational angling post reclamation. The stream in question is deep in the backcountry and prime grizzly bear habitat, and according to a spokesperson for Montana Fish and Game, “is barely fished.” If this is the case, why open it to fishing and have to defend why you are doing so, or worse, put the whole project at risk due to opposition?
In the end, NFC opted to take a non-position in regard to the project. While we didn’t actively support it, we didn’t publicly oppose it either. In fact, we never mentioned it by name until now, and we did publicly support the goal of removing the nonnative rainbows via chemical reclamation and mechanical means in a designated Wilderness Area, the latter two of which were being actively opposed by other organizations.
Unfortunately, a position of neutrality in regard to a project thousands of miles from the closest NFC chapter was not enough for some, and NFC is now being challenged in a very public, personal, and and misleading manner. Like chemical reclamation, wild refuges are not as cut-and-dry as some want to portray them. If they are to be embraced by the public, those promoting them will need to engage in fair and open dialogue and be willing to concede ground if needed.
NFC is not about any one person. It is a bunch of moving parts that need to gel in order for the whole thing to work. There are times when we will take positions, or not, that some will disagree with, including internally. In these cases, we need to agree to disagree and live to fight another day for the good of the resource. This was one of those times…
NFC will be issuing a formal response/rebuttal to the recent public challenges shortly. As we always do, it will be blogged and posted so our supporters can understand what we did and didn’t do and why, not what someone wants folks to think we did and why.