FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

FAQ

Q: how Is Native fish coalition structured from a legal standpoint? 

A:  NFC is a national 501(c)(3) non-profit. We are incorporated in Maine, and our headquarters, albeit virtual as we have no physical presence, is in Maine. NFC “operates” in other states via all-volunteer chapters. We have a national Board and non-voting Advisory Council, as well as Boards and Advisory Councils in each state where we have a chapter. At the national level, NFC has an Executive Director, Chair, Vice Chairs at the North and South region levels, as well as a Secretary/Treasurer and Technologist. At the state level, each chapter has a Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary. State Chairs are also on the National Board to give each chapter a voice. Most financial, technology, and other administrative functions are handled at the national level. Outside of the national and state boards and advisory councils, membership in NFC is non-participatory and at the national level.

Q: how Is Native fish coalition structured from an operational standpoint? 

A:  NFC has deliberately small national and state boards, and national and state advisory councils. Due to our narrow focus, and the need to stay within our mission, state boards are not afforded the level of autonomy they are in larger organizations with broader missions. State board and advisory council membership, as well as projects and partnerships, must be approved at the national level. Chapters receive funding, equipment, supplies, and other assistance from national on an as needed basis.

Q: Is Native fish coalition a conservation or fishing organization? 

A:  While most, but not all of our Board and Advisory Council members are avid anglers, and some make part or all of their living in the recreational fishing industry, NFC is a conservation organization, not a fishing organization. We believe wild native fish have intrinsic value and are an integral and critically important component of a healthy aquatic ecosystem. NFC also believes that if you take care of wild native fish, fishing will take care of itself. 

Q: is native fish coalition a GAMEFISH conservation organization? 

A:  While much of our focus is on gamefish, as they are often the species in most need of help, NFC is not a gamefish-specific organization. Native gamefish are however indicator species and when they are in good shape most other species often are as well. Being gamefish-specific would ignore the big picture, and the fact that all native fish are dependent on each other to at least some degree. Some species provide food for other species, others provide a buffer for juvenile anadromous fish returning to the ocean, and some help lessen predation on less numerous fish species via their sheer abundance.   

Q: is native fish coalition a salmonid conservation organization? 

A:  Due to our presence on the east coast, and initial concentration in the northeast, much of our focus has been on char and salmon. But it’s important to note that NFC now has a chapters in Alabama and Arkansas, states without any wild native salmonids, as well as Georgia and South Carolina, states where native salmonid range is very limited. Just as our northern chapters focus on native salmonids at the gamefish level, our southern chapters focus on native bass species. It is also important to note that Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia are coastal states, so saltwater and diadromous species are part of our focus as well. And all chapters focus on non-game fish species.   

Q: What does native fish coalition mean by the term "native"?

A: When NFC uses the term “native,” we mean indigenous or historically present: "Indigenous: originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native." Unless otherwise noted we mean native to a given body of water not the state, region, or any other land-based boundaries. Native is not meant to imply self-sustaining or genetically pure as some state fish and game agencies, academics, and conservation organizations are now using the term. 

Q: WHAT DOES NATIVE FISH COALITION MEAN BY THE TERM "NONNATIVE"?

A: When NFC uses the term “nonnative,” we mean not indigenous or not historically present. Unless otherwise noted, we mean not native to the respective body of water, not the state, region, country, continent, etc. 

Q: WHAT DOES NATIVE FISH COALITION MEAN BY THE TERM "INVASIVE"?

A: The term “invasive” is used to indicate that a nonnative species is more harmful than others. While accurate at face value, it is just not that simple. Some nonnative fish are more negatively impactful than others, but this can vary depending on the native fish present. For example, nonnative bass have a notable negative impact on native salmonids. Conversely, they may not have as much of an impact on native warmwater species such as pickerel. But nonnative bass can have a notable impact on native bass species due to hybridization. Species that do not have a major impact on their own can become invasive when compounded with other nonnative species. This is most common with regard to baitfish species. The use of the term “invasive” has also been applied inconsistently. While nonnative brown trout can be highly invasive to native brook, rainbow, and cutthroat trout, we rarely refer to them as such. The fact is that all nonnative fish have at least some level of negative impact on native fish, and this can change as abundance changes. When NFC uses the term “invasive,” we are referring to a specific situation where a nonnative species is having a notable negative impact on native fish.

Q: What does native fish coalition mean by the term "wild"?

A: When NFC uses the term “wild,” we mean self-sustaining or born in nature, and from naturally deposited eggs: "Wild: (of an animal or plant) living or growing in the natural environment; not domesticated or cultivated." We try to use the term wild at the individual fish level and self-sustaining at the population level. It is not meant to imply previously-stocked-over or genetically compromised as some state fish and game agencies, academics, and conservation organizations are now using the term.

Q: What does native fish coalition mean by the term "STOCKED"?

A: When NFC uses the term “stocked” we mean fish that are born in a hatchery not born in nature. This includes both fish and fish eggs. As for fish resulting from eggs planted in the wild, if the eggs come from hatchery broodstock, they can have some of the same issues as found in stocked fish such as low levels of genetic diversity, a higher potential for disease, etc. When the eggs come from wild fish they are as close to wild as you get in regard to husbandry. When speaking about fish born from stocked eggs, regardless of origin, we try to state exactly what they are and where they came from. We see fish moved from one body of water to another as stocked as well, and for many of the same reasons.

Q: WHAT DOES NATIVE FISH COALITION MEAN BY THE TERM "WILD NATIVE"?

A: When NFC uses the terms “wild” and “native” together, we mean an indigenous species born in nature. We combine the terms so as not to be confused with self-sustaining non-native fish (wild rainbows east of the Continental Divide, wild browns in the United States, etc.) or stocked native fish (hatchery brook trout in Maine, etc.)

Q: WHAT IS NATIVE FISH COALITION’S POSITION IN REGARD TO GENETIC PURITY?

A: NFC sees genetic purity in regard to fish as important and worth protecting. Genetically pure fish have evolved to survive, and prosper, in the specific conditions they are found in. However, while maintaining genetic purity is a top priority, NFC believes that native species presence and absence is in many ways more important than their genetic pedigree. We would rather see less than perfect native species present, than not have them present at all. This is due to the important role native species play in a given ecosystem.

Q: What is native fish coalition's position regarding wild or self-sustaining fish such as trout, salmon, bass, and pike where they are not native? 

A:  NFC is more “for” native fish than “against” nonnative fish. All nonnative fish negatively impact wild native fish to some degree however, and in some cases, to a high degree. We will address nonnative fish only where control, reduction, or eradication is a biologically, economically, and socially feasible option, and there is a direct and measurable benefit to wild native fish. As avid recreational anglers, many of our board members fish for nonnative species because they are what is there. We do not however promote or defend nonnative fish in any way, or get involved in the protection or proliferation of nonnative fish.   

Q: what is native fish coalition's position regarding stocking in support of recreational fishing? 

A:  NFC is against stocking over wild native fish as stocked fish compete with wild native fish for food and space, can prey on them, and can disrupt or suppress natural reproduction of wild native fish. Intra-species stocking (brook trout over brook trout) can negatively impact genetic diversity of wild native fish, while inter-species stocking (rainbows over cutthroat) can result in hybridization with wild native fish, and the establishment of self-sustaining populations of nonnative and potentially invasive fish. Stocking can also introduce disease, parasites, and viruses. We do not believe that trout, the most commonly stocked fish, need to be everywhere and do not support introducing them to previously troutless or fishless waters as it negatively impacts other forms of aquatic life such as native baitfish, roughfish, and non-salmonid gamefish, as well as amphibians, insects, and wildlife that depends on them. NFC also has concerns as to the cost of stocking in support of recreational angling, especially put-and-take fishing, and believes that the money could be better used elsewhere such as land acquisition, habitat restoration and reclamation. We are also concerned with regard to messaging. Private stocking of public waters is also an issue, and in states such as Pennsylvania, virtually unrestricted. Many states are facing a nonnative fish introduction epidemic. If we want anglers to stop moving fish around, we need to lead by example. Stocking for recreational fishing is not however something Native Fish Coalition gets involved in, except when it negatively impacts wild native fish and there is something that can be done about it.    

Q: what is native fish coalition's position regarding stocking in support of conservation and restoration? 

A:  NFC does not see ongoing stocking programs as a long-term solution for conserving or restoring wild native fish populations. In fact, to date they have failed miserably. We do however view targeted and temporary stocking as a useful tool for saving native fish populations, unique life history strategies, strains, subspecies, and species, when there are no other options left. For example, Atlantic salmon in the United States are teetering on the brink of extinction and supported almost solely through stocking. Stop stocking and the species could be lost. While carpet-bombing our rivers and streams with juvenile Atlantic salmon has not solved the problem, specialized programs such as Downeast Salmon Federation’s Peter Gray Hatchery, which uses untreated water from natal rivers and tough-love to create a less domesticated fish more capable of surviving in the wild, are showing some promise. And unlike aquaculture or other private hatcheries, Downeast Salmon Federation is using river-specific strain eggs maintained by the federal government. But this needs to be temporary and not an ongoing permanent program. Another form of conservation stocking NFC supports is when it is done to boost the genetic diversity of populations where the loss of diversity has put the population at risk due to decreased reproductive rates and other health issues. But this should be done as an event not an ongoing program. If a population is in enough trouble to warrant conservation/restoration stocking, it should be closed to fishing, or where safe to do so, managed under low-impact tackle rules such as artificial lures and flies, barbless hooks, and catch-and-release.

Q: what is native fish coalition's position regarding stocking in support of reclamation and reintroduction? 

A:  When piscicides such as rotenone are used to eradicate nonnative fish, they by default remove native fish as well (see FAQ below for more on chemical reclamation). In a perfect world we would trap enough native fish prior to chemical treatment to naturally reestablish the population(s) post reclamation. Unfortunately, by the time funding becomes available and the necessary permissions, permits, and resources are in place, there are often not enough wild native fish left to establish a genetically viable population. Sometimes there are no fish left at all. In other cases native fish populations are lost to things like acidification, disease, habitat degradation, stocking, angler exploitation, etc. NFC supports stocking as part of reclamation only where there are not enough fish left to support natural propagation. And of course we only support post-treatment stocking when it involves native species, and all native species, not just gamefish. As for stocking in support of native fish reintroduction, while we support it, we do so only when it is limited to what is absolutely necessary to reestablish the population and done in conjunction with regulations and restrictions that allow the population to increase and rebuild naturally. Post reintroduction, waters should be closed to fishing for a period long enough to stabilize the population. Once stabilized, the water should be managed under regulations that protect the population from high levels of incidental mortality and angler exploitation.

Q: WHAT IS NATIVE FISH COALITION'S POSITION IN REGARD TO using hatcheries to protect at-risk wild native fish?

A:  When a unique life history strategy, strain, subspecies, or species is at risk of local extirpation or extinction within its native range, it may be necessary to move them somewhere else to prevent their loss. When it comes to non-fish wildlife, this usually means zoos and other facilities where captive breeding programs can be implemented. When fish are involved, it means moving them to a hatchery, often referred to as conservation hatcheries. NFC supports the use of hatcheries to try to save at-risk fish where the intent is to maintain the specific genetics, adaptations, or characteristics until the population can be safely and effectively reintroduced to its native waters. 

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. This is sometimes referred to as “assisted migration.” These surrogate waters 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 assisted migration and 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.

Q: what is native fish coalition's position regarding the use of chemical treatment (rotenone, etc.) to eradicate nonnative fish? 

A:  While Native Fish Coalition sees rotenone as an invaluable tool for use in native fish restoration, we recognize it is not a perfect solution and comes with a price environmentally, socially, politically, and economically.  It also treats the symptom, not the problem, and is reactive not proactive. That said, in many, and in fact most, cases chemical treatment is the only way to effectively remove nonnative species that are imperiling our native species. Take it off the table, and we would lose some level of native fish populations, including unique life history strategies, strains, subspecies and even species, which in our opinion is a far worse alternative. NFC does not however support chemical treatment in support of nonnative or stocked fisheries, or for purely recreational purposes.  

Q: what is native fish coalition's position regarding THE REMOVAL OF WILD NONNATIVE FISH BY mechanical means? 

A:  Native Fish Coalition supports the removal of nonnative fish by mechanical means such as e-fishing and various forms of netting and trapping when done by state and federal agencies or volunteers. However, while mechanized removal can lessen the problem by reducing nonnative fish biomass, it rarely results in a complete removal of the target species. Therefore, the effects are temporary, and unless part of an ongoing program such as that being done on Yellowstone Lake to control nonnative lake trout that are imperiling wild native cutthroat and nothing else can be done, mechanized removal is not a long-term solution. With that said, it can help, and when chemical reclamation is not an option, mechanical removal is the only option left to government agencies looking to control naturalized nonnative fish.

Q: what is native fish coalition's position regarding THE REMOVAL OF WILD NONNATIVE FISH BY ANGLERS? 

A:  Native Fish Coalition supports the removal of nonnative fish by anglers where it is legally required (nonnative trout and char in Yellowstone National Park, brown trout in Shenandoah National Park, etc.,) or recommended or encouraged by state or federal fish and game agencies (bass in Maine’s Rapid River, rainbows in Idaho’s South Fork Snake, etc.). In other cases where it is not required by law or officially recommended or encouraged, but legal to do so (including adhering to wanton waste laws), ecologically beneficial, and done responsibly (consumed or discarded away from trails, etc.), we view it as a personal decision.

Q: what is native fish coalition's position regarding watershed and fish population studies and surveys? 

A:  Native Fish Coalition fully supports population studies and surveys where they benefit wild native fish populations. We understand however that not all studies and surveys accomplish this. NFC will not get involved in fish population studies and surveys that do not have clear goals and objectives. We do not participate in projects that go on longer than what is needed to meet the core objectives. NFC will not be part of projects that are not fulfilling the promises made to the stakeholders, volunteers, and the public. We are opposed to killing fish, especially rare fish or those from stressed populations, just to prove they are there.

Q: what is native fish coalition's position regarding stream and riparian area habitat work? 

A:  Native Fish Coalition fully supports habitat work where it benefits wild native fish populations. We recognize however that not all habitat work does what it is intended to do. For example, we do not support the cutting of live stream-side trees to increase in-stream woody debris as it removes important canopy, can destabilize banks, and can increase avian predation. We do however support using fallen trees, dead trees, and even sometimes cutting live trees, from outside critical riparian zones. NFC will not get involved in habitat work on waters that are actively being stocked unless the plan is to discontinue such. We take a similar position in regard to waters where nonnative gamefish are present, and will not actively support projects that do not include a plan for removing or controlling the nonnative species. While not a hard-and-fast rule, NFC prefers to work where there are protective land use and fishing regulations in place. Exceptions may be made for remote waters with limited angler exploitation and places where we have a landowner willing to make land-use concessions. In general, we will spend your money as you would, and avoid projects with limited return on investment.

Q: WHAT IS NATIVE FISH COaLITION’S POSITION ON DAMS?

A: In general, NFC believes that dams are bad for wild native fish. They block passage, impound water, warm water, trap sediment, and greatly alter the river or stream below. As such, we support dam removal in most, but not all cases. Exceptions are when the removal of a dam will allow invasive species to access water they had previously been unable to. Where removal is desirable but not possible for social or economic reasons, NFC supports the installation of bypasses, fish ladders, and lifts in that order. When passage is not an option, NFC supports increased minimum flows that better represent the natural flow regime. NFC does not support alterations to dams to support nonnative or stocked fish. In some cases, NFC may support the creation of a dam, or more accurately a barrier, to prevent the infiltration of invasive nonnative fish.

Q: What is NFC’s position on beaver?

A:  Beavers and native fish, including brook trout, cutthroat trout, and Atlantic salmon, coevolved, and have coexisted in relative peace for thousands of years. We still have beavers, and we still have wild native fish.  While beaver dams can obstruct, or even block fish-passage, including impeding access to critically important thermal refuge and spawning habitat, their impact is often temporary.  Beaver dams can also warm the water due to impounding, and bury important stream habitat, including spawning habitat, under stagnant water and silt.  But beaver dams can also provide deep water refuge, and alter insect and minnow life in a positive manner, thus increasing forage for other species of fish and wildlife.  Beaver dams can help buffer floods as well.  Removing beaver dams is a form of husbandry, and NFC is generally opposed to human interference in the natural order of things.  However, in cases where a rare or imperiled species, subspecies, life history strategy, or populations are stressed by a beaver activity, we may need to step in and do what we can to protect the former.  While generally opposed to the removal of beaver dams, NFC sees the need for exceptions, and as such is willing to take a pragmatic approach when dealing with at-risk wild native fish. But again, this is the exception, not the rule. It is also important to note that while part of nature, in many areas beaver no longer have any natural predators due to the extirpation of wolves and other carnivores. In some places, recreational trapping has been banned or restricted as well. This can lead to an artificially high abundance of beavers which can result in excessive damming. In cases where beaver populations have reached unnatural levels and are negatively impacting wild native fish, water quality, and habitat, some level of targeted removal may be warranted.

Q: What is NFC’s position on manmade rock dams?

A:  NFC is opposed to the construction of manmade rock dams and other forms of streambed alterations, including cairns, channels, and pools. In fact, we have an organization-wide volunteer initiative to address manmade rock dams when they are encountered. Rock dams alter the streambed, and can harm minnows, insects, and amphibians. They can trap fish and make them more vulnerable to angler exploitation and predation by birds, mammals, and reptiles. Like any dam, manmade rock dams can block fish passage, warm the water, collect silt, and redirect flows against banks causing erosion and siltation. NFC supports the removal or breeching of manmade rock dams where it is safe and legal to do so, including obeying stream alteration and trespass laws.   

Q: what is native fish coalition's position regarding bait fishing?

A:  NFCs primary concern in regard to bait is the potential for the accidental introduction of nonnative species, disease and parasites associated with the use of live minnows, crayfish, frogs, leeches, etc. Another concern with bait in general is its high incidental mortality rate. According to most studies, roughly 30% of fish released after being caught on bait die. That number is even higher when ice-fishing, or during low or warm water periods. While not a problem when used over stocked or nonnative fish, bait can negatively impact wild native fish populations, including non-target native species. The impact can be lessened by using circle hooks and barbless hooks. While there is a place for bait fishing, there are times when the impact and risks are simply too high. When it comes to live bait, unless it is harvested at the source, it doesn’t belong anywhere wild native fish are present.

Q: what is native fish coalition's position regarding fishing with lures? 

A:  Native Fish Coalition is not opposed to fishing with lures. It is our preferred position where tackle restrictions are needed to protect wild native fish from incidental mortality. Most studies show similar incidental mortality rates between flies and lures. We believe that with a few adjustments and concessions, it could be even closer. Prohibiting synthetic bait, restricting lures to a single hook, and substituting single-point hooks for treble hooks (or breaking one or two hook points off) would help lessen handling and lower incidental mortality, as would using barbless hooks. NFC sees lures as a reasonable compromise between bait and fly fishing, as it allows anglers to use the conventional tackle they already have. We do however have concerns regarding lost and discarded monofilament, and would like to see some adjustments and concessions made to lessen the impact of such.  

Q: what is native fish coalition's position in regard to bowfishing?

A:  Targeting fish with a bow and arrow is gaining in popularity across parts of the United States. NFC is not opposed to any type of angling, or what is done with the fish when it involves stocked or nonnative fish. When it involves wild native fish, NFC is opposed to any form of angling when the fish harvested are not consumed. This includes both gamefish and non-gamefish.

Q: what is native fish coalition's position regarding the recreational harvest of fish? 

A:  Native Fish Coalition is not opposed to the harvest of stocked or nonnative fish, as it is a social and economic issue, not an environmental issue. While we feel prudence is warranted in regard to the harvest of wild native fish, and some species and populations more than others, we are not absolutely opposed to the sustainable harvest of wild native fish. We are however opposed to the harvest of wild native fish when it results in a noticeable decrease or change in population size, geographic distribution, or age/size-class distribution, all of which can negatively impact the population. Harvest can also result in calls for so-called supplemental stocking, which further compromises wild native fish populations and has the opposite effect of what is intended. 

Q: what is native fish coalition's position regarding catch-and-release?

A:  Native Fish Coalition sees catch-and-release as a valuable tool for protecting rare fish, as well as wild native fish that have been compromised by habitat degradation, invasive introductions, angler exploitation, stocking, etc. We also see catch-and-release as the best way to maintain natural abundance and size/age distribution which is good for wild native fish populations. While we may lobby for catch-and-release to protect wild native fish, we will not get involved in efforts to impose or remove catch-and-release restrictions on stocked or nonnative fish, as this is a social and economic issue, not an environmental issue. While many fish populations have been saved by catch-and-release, none have ever been destroyed by it, and many have been greatly improved.

Q: what is native fish coalition's position regarding EFFORTS to grow larger fish for recreational angling?

A:  While Native Fish Coalition does not oppose the use of “husbandry” to grow larger stocked and nonnative fish, we are opposed to doing so to manage wild native fish. Attempts to grow larger fish often involve population reductions under the belief that “fewer fish means more food, and more food means bigger fish.” Not only is this an oversimplification of a very complex issue, it doesn’t always work and it can cause problems. Our belief is that wild native fish should be what natural environmental factors dictate, not what we want them to be. While you can harvest your way into trouble, you can rarely harvest your way out of it.  

Q: WHAT IS NATIVE FISH COALITION’S POSITION REGARDING AQUACULTURE or aquafarming? 

A: NFC recognizes that people need to eat. We also understand that most ranching and farming negatively impacts wild native fish to at least some degree, and in some cases to a high degree, and that raising fish for consumption is no different. Trout, Atlantic salmon, catfish, tilapia, crayfish, oysters, and other aquatic species have been farmed for years. With wild native Atlantic salmon teetering on the brink of extinction in the United States, aquaculture is and will continue to be the primary regional source of salmon for consumption. Raising Atlantic salmon in open ocean pens however is arguably a worst-case scenario due to disease, parasites, viruses, and genetic damage caused by escaped farmed fish interbreeding with wild native fish. We see efforts to convert to land-based salmon farming as a step in the right direction. NFC does however have concerns in regard to water withdrawal and effluent, and see closed systems that recycle water rather than treat-and-release it as the best option. The same holds true for raising trout and other species. Ultimately, NFC is not opposed to aquaculture, or any other forms of farming for that matter, as long as it is done in a way that minimizes the negative impact on wild native fish and water quality. We look at each instance on a case by case basis to determine if it meets that criteria, and if not, we work to try to lessen the negative impacts on wild native fish and water-quality. 

Q: what is native fish coalition's position regarding climate change?  

A:  Left unchecked, Native Fish Coalition sees climate change as a potential game-changer and a significant threat to the nation’s wild native fish – especially salmonids. While it has the potential to make everything else moot, we can’t and should not all be working on the same thing at once, and we can’t afford to ignore the other threats to our wild native fish. As a relatively small grassroots organization, NFC feels we are best suited for hands-on advocacy at the local and state levels with a focus on what others are not addressing, rather than what others are already working on.