TU's mission.........hello

[willowhead]

Don't get me wrong, but more and more and more and more.............i see TU becomming a hatchery fish advocate. Look at the Home Page of the www.flyanglersonline.com web-site this week and you'll see exactly what i mean. And i've noticed this for quite a few years now. Isn't TU supposed to be in the "Wild Fish" business??????? HELLO............... The article i'm refering to is the one titled "Float Stocking For Better Fishing." Now i've always believed in the "credit where credit is due" theroy, but i fail to see why a TU chapter would prefere (settle for) to work on a stocking program, instead of a wild trout enhancement program. Now i don't know for a fact that, (the chapters mentioned in the article) they are not working on a wild trount enhancement program along "with" their stocking program.............but i saw no mention of it in the article. Now wassss up with that? I attended the National TU Convention in Syracuse, N.Y. in 2000, TUY2K it was billed as. And i noticed it even before that..........that TU is seemingly more and more on the side of stocking.............wasss up? Can anyone fill me in on this paradox? IMHO, stocking of hatchery fish "SUCKX" case closed. Of course there may be a few exceptions in places where there simply is absolutely no chance of a hold over rate of any significance whatsoever. Thus meaning no actuall chance of a wild self sustaning trout population either. OK, maybe in such a case. But to have a TU chapter stocking fish in a perfectly good trout stream, one that "CAN" sustain a wild trout population, is ludicris. Stocking is diametrically oppoosed to the health of a wild trout population. Somebody has the cart before the horse. HELLO................why the hell aren't they putting in Vibert (sp?) boxes and at least raising the fish in the waters they want to stock? HELLO.................. Hell, if the West Branch of the Delaware (tailwater w/significant flow/release issues) can sustain a wild trout population, then why can't any other tailwater in most any other state do the same? HELLO................. "Wake up and smell the Roses" ........how bout something smells fishy. mark......... jmtc from a life member of TU

 

[DaveR]

Mark,

I would think that TU supports both even though you don't see it in the article. First and foremost is their need to get members and the best way to do that is to support trout fishing for everyone. That means stockies to some degree. As the membership base is built up, they will move from stockies to more critical issues as they become more interested. More people means more support and better trout fishing of all types. Ultimately, the more bodies they have as paying members, the more power that comes with it.

JMHO,
Dave

 

[JeffK]

Mark,
I agree with Dave. As a membership chairman of a local TU chapter I've found all these issues get more complicated in practice. TU is primarily a conservation organization to preserve trout habitat. Unfortunately in NJ this is largely a holding action to slow effects of suburban sprawl. Wild trout are high on the priority list, but, in practice it gets complicated and we are fighting a few generations used to put and take fishing. Generally stocked trout are larger and easier to catch, so wild trout are a tough sell. Getting members and kids fishing is a first step. NJ has seen the ranks of trout fishermen halved in the last twenty years. There are plenty of committed fisherman, but politicians listen to numbers. I think NYS as seen a little drop over the same years. Someone complained about guys from NJ with their six kids fishing for the stockies in the Beaverkill. Who is going to fight for fisheries 20 years from now if those kids don't see trout fishing as a normal part of life? How many fisherman here got hooked by dunking worms for stockies as a kid?

The politics of stream projects is also incredible. First, any project needs the support of the local people. In NJ, it's a rare project that gets done without the support of the local county sportsmans association. These guys are largely hunters and there are few fly fishermen. Fortunately, they see the effect that PETA types and sprawl have had on hunting and are willing allies if treated with respect. However, crossing the local assn or acting above the bait fishers will kill nearly any project. For example, extension of fly fishing areas on the Big Flat Brook is generally opposed by the locals, who are mostly bait fishermen. One club they can wield is closing the Little Flat Brook since this stream is still largely on private property. And while the BFB is on recently acquired public land, the goverment used a heavy hand in getting the properties and the locals are still angry. Any projects viewed as another attempt by "outsiders" to control a region they have lived in for generations is viewed with suspicion. Change is slow, but, the BFB will likely better regulations and more wild trout as time goes on. However, these changes are tough and not always simple.

 

[Unregistered]

{"Who is going to fight for fisheries 20 years from now if those kids don't see trout fishing as a normal part of life? How many fisherman here got hooked by dunking worms for stockies as a kid?"

.............

A rational voice looking ahead.

Amen to that.

 

[willowhead]

Guys i agree wholeheartedly that we MUST keep bringing in the kids and younger generation in order to keep the fight (for wild fish and their habitat) going. And of course most kids start with worms and stockies. But an organization like TU has a responsiblilty to keep on track and contiue to be focused on their "mission." And in that mission statement is the word "WILD." Which over the last few years has become sadly lost in the maylay. The promotion of stocked fish is NOT consistant with TU's mission statement any way you look at it. I understand all the rationalizations for it, but it is inconsistant to stand for one thing, and promote another. All grey area aside, it's a pretty black and white reality, imho. The younger generation needs to be educated in the facts of what it takes for a wild fish to survive until maturity and spawning age, and what it takes to secure a decent enviornment for that fish to successfully raise offspring, NOT how much money can be made by stocking a river. Kids are smart. Don't try to fool 'em. You just end up lookin' like a hippocrit. Trout fishing IS a normal part of life........for wild trout. Seems to me, fishin' for stockies is the abmormal............when you stop and think about it. We should be advocating the practices of restoration NOT fake fisheries. mark........

 

[Unregistered]

Guys i agree wholeheartedly that we MUST keep bringing in the kids and younger generation in order to keep the fight (for wild fish and their habitat) going. And of course most kids start with worms and stockies. But an organization like TU has a responsiblilty to keep on track and contiue to be focused on their "mission." And in that mission statement is the word "WILD." mark........

.......................

At:
http://www.tu.org/about_tu/tu_mission.asp



Mission
Trout Unlimited’s mission is to conserve, protect and restore North America’s trout and salmon fisheries and their watersheds.

TU accomplishes this mission on local, state and national levels with an extensive and dedicated volunteer network. TU’s national office, based just outside of Washington, D.C., and its regional offices employ professionals who testify before Congress, publish a quarterly magazine, intervene in federal legal proceedings, and work with the organization’s 125,000 volunteers in 500 chapters nationwide to keep them active and involved in conservation issues.


Mark,
Try using google.

 

[JeffK]

Speaking for a local chapter, we are a human organization and are no ways perfect. Internal politics, burnout of the few members that do most of the work, many people who look at TU as a fishing club more than a conservation organization, and a growing separation of National and Local chapters (due to complete separation of finances) are problems. However, realistically I do not see a better way. Our members monitor stream temperatures and advocate dam removal when thermal data supports it (generally not successfully), clean up the river and maintain the trails of the Claremont Stretch of the S Branch, one of NJ's best wild trout areas(TU lobbying was essential in the state setting aside and not stocking the Claremont Stretch; after ten years of cleaning the stream most people seem to respect it better), and pester state/county/municipal governments when they observe pollution or drainage problems. On the other hand, we also rent the Connetquot two days a year which are basically social outings (and it seems a lot of wild trout fishers are not immune to the Connetquot which is basically fishing in a hatchery). While we do not always follow a pure wild trout only line, we are one group who is trying preserve, monitor, and fight for the embattled wild trout streams of NJ even though it is usually a slow, frustrating task. Preserving wild trout streams (in an area that is at the edge of natural trout distribution anyway) in the face of the highest population density in the country combined with ever intensifying development is tough, and it amazes me that we still have over 100 basically wild trout streams in the state

 

[Andy B]

JeffK and DaveR:


Nice replies and dead on the subject. I do believe that wild Trout do need to be protected along with the waters they live in and the land that surrounds the waters. Keep in mind that not everyone understands or has been educated about wild Trout. Keep in mind it's the stockies that first gets the fishermen involved and as he learns more about fishing the now Angler hooked on Trout (Stockies) is slowly educated and shown and taught the valuable lessons of Waters and conservation and wild trout. I look as stockies in a way that you can't run before you can walk. I feel that stockies fits this description. Keep in mind that most of us talking here are experienced Anglers that understand about the benefits of conservation and how important our wild Trout streams are. If you would have met me 15 years ago, I did not know anything about wild Trout or cared to. Because I got hooked in fishing that was stocked trout I started to learn and understand and now fully am aware about clean water and wild Trout. TU does care about the wild Trout streams. TU has educated anglers from stockies to finally wild Trout. You got to start people like me somewhere. Not every one is going to say oh yeah your right wild Trout streams and management is the way to go. I look back, if it was'nt for some of those streams stocked abundantly with Trout I might not even be here or give a care to this topic. So just because you read a paper that states TU is helping to promote a float socking has more undertones than you think. If TU wins one guy out of hundred on it's side, eventually TU will become powerful enough to help people stop and think what they are doing to the environment and Wild Trout populations. Also the presevation of our streams and our rights as Anglers to fish those streams. It's not an easy battle. I guess that's why I just purchased a Three year membership to TU. It's time for me to get off my lazy A_ _ and help to make a difference. I may have had differences with NJTrout board, but when I look at all the fighting for streams that has gone on over there. I simply applaud them. They have not won every battle, but at least they can say they tried.

Andy B

 

[willowhead]

Well perhaps the word "wild" has been omitted from the statement. Trust me, it use to be there. Tells me all i need to know. Now i see what's going on. At least this thread got a few people involved. HEY, i love fishing the Connetquot..........but you really can't look at those fish as stockies. They are bread right in the same water they will live their entire lives in, (other than when they go to sea, and they do)......and with the exception of a little human help with the actuall egg and sperm mix, they survive all the same rigors any wild trout has to.......perhaps even more what with the pounding they get. I was refering to the fish i see comming from a state run hatcheries with torn up fins and lousey color, no fighting ability and generally no survival chops. Guess some guys would settle for such fish. mark...........

 

[bjmiller]

Yeah Mark, but I think the Connequot fish still "get fed". Not anywhere near the same as wild. The only ones that get to the salt are the ones that go over the dam. Not a huge number compared to what's above.

Bruce

 

[JeffK]

I love fishing the Connetquot a coupla times a year. The setting is great! It's wonderful that a significant amount of land was preserved in the middle of Long Island. There are loads of plants there that have gone missing elswhere along the coast and the turkeys, deer, and ospreys are cool. The history is great with the Old Post Road still a dirt track as it was 200 years ago, Snedecors Inn, and the Old Mill. The fish are managed really well and are colorful and in good contition (the spawning brookies in the fall are almost psychedelically colored). However, they stock close to 50,000 trout a year in a two mile stretch of stream that runs 35 cfs in the spring and 15 cfs in the summer! That level of stocking is not really wild and the park will "neither confirm nor deny" that they do supplemental feeding. However, I somehow don't feel it can support 10 times the fish density of a limestone stream without a little help. Still, I like to fish it since it's the only chance I'll ever get to fish "private" water managed the same as when the Vanderbilts, Astors, Belmonts etc owned the joint and I feel like an old school millionaire when I drift a Royal Coachman wet fly over a pod of willing 15" brookies. Back in the 70's when discussions were being held about how to open the park, one side viewed the beat system with its $10 session fee as elitist and wanted to make it a general put and take water like a million other places. Like $10 would break me, even in the 70's when I was a poor student! Thank God the old system with Gil as the manager was preserved, since I can fish for 10" stockies every day of the week, but, could never afford to fish on private water managed as well as the Connetquot.

 

[Johnw]

Jeff - I agree with you on the Connetquot. I made my first trip there in March and totally enjoyed myself. Went with our local TU chapter (by far the best way to go I think) and in my opinion you just have to recognize it for what it is. Sure it's like fishing in a hatchery in some ways but the fish are great, the surroundings are wonderful, and the whole history of the place is fascinating. I'm definitely going back.

 

[willowhead]

happy fishing

You guys are ALL right, and right "On The Money" with both your observances and attitudes. I've been fishing the Connetquote every year since 1992 and it is one of the most fun things i do each year. I really try to hunt out a fish that's been to sea. That's the most fun, when you catch one of them. It's a fairy land of course, but what the hell...........at least it's managed right. If it weren't for the strict regs. there, and the staff, the place would soon go to hell in a hand basket. The genral public has proven they can ruin most anything in the past. Anyone can't afford the Connaquot, can surf cast the beach on Long Island. mark...........

 

[rford]

They deffenitly get fed, but they are an annomaly. That place is like jurasic park for trout....Old pure blood lines...thats why the fish are so beutiful, plus no raceways... This winter 3 rainbows were found at bottom of a grading pond for fingerlings, between fall and spring they estimate they ate 60,000 fish, the rainbows were all over 30 inch's ....I luv that!

 

[willowhead]

Hey Ralph, man that is incredable. I've seen browns in there over a yard stick long.......no doubt. Have never managed to catch one though. Boy would that ever be something. My biggest is 26 inches. Thing musta weighted 8 lbs. easy. Those big boys gotta go 20 lbs. They're frickin huge. Pretty picky though. Next time i see one, i'm throwin' streamers. mark..........

 

[Mayfly]

Mark,

Just want to respond to your original question. Where wild trout can be sustained, like the West Branch of the Delaware, stocking will not be necessary. Where wild trout cannot be sustained by the river, then stocking is necessary IF the river is to have a trout population, albeit temporarily. I'm willing to bet that stocking can take different forms and scheduled differently to enrich and elongate the trout season. Oh, and by the way, the last I heard, the Beaverkill and Willowemoc are stocked by the state. Heavily too! Then there are the 'quiet' stockings by the community. Gotta keep attracting the city folks.

I also find it interesting that an extremely famous/respected fly fisher said that the trout in the Beaverkill are "very sophisticated". I guess growing up in a cement run of a hatchery will do that to a trout.

Allan

 

[willowhead]

Allan, until it is proven that the BeaMoc cannot support a wild trout fishery, and it isn't, it ought to be allowed to do so, and should NOT be stocked, imho. And yes, i was attracted from the city, but it wouldn't bother me one bit if that (others being attracted) ceased tomorrow. LOL. "Just the facts mam." mark.......

 

[Mayfly]

Mark,

It was proven because fishermen, all kinds, will not allow it to be a wild fishery. You don't think so? Just re-read the book that Andy covets, Catskill Rivers or the VanPut book, Beaverkill. The river was basically fish-ed out. If it were not for stocking the river by the State and supplimented by community stocking, the river would be fished out within a couple of years. Besides, how would you go about proving your thesis: "until it is proven that the BeaMoc cannot support a wild trout fishery"? Stocking will not be stopped, period. There's simply too much of the local economy based on bringing in fishermen and their revenues. That's what I meant when I said, 'Gotta keep attrracting those city folks". Without fishing Roscoe would shrivel up.

Allan

 

[willowhead]

Allan, it's very simple. You make the entire BeaMoc (the Willow and Beaverkill), C&R ONLY. Anyone caught taking fish is thrown in the hooscow. PERIOD! At least for the first 5 to 7 yrs. Then after the river is self sustaining, (naturally reproducing a healthy wild trout population), you open it up to ONE fish, per person, per day. And you enforce the hell out of it. Anyone caught with more than one fish on their person has their license taken away for life. Anything can be accomplished Allan, IF, you have the will. If not, then you go nowhere. mark..........

 

[JeffK]

Stopping the heavy Beaverkill stocking may have unintended consequences; be careful what you wish for. Maybe the smallmouth would take over if only brown trout fingerlings were added; the smallmouth might out compete smaller trout in the summer. Maybe the rainbows would spread out quicker in the Beaverkill;they are already becoming more common every year. Maybe the native browns wouldn't get very big. Unfortunately, we have already played with nature already since smallmouth, rainbows, and browns are all introduced to the Delaware system.
Just to be a Devil's advocate, expecting the Beaverkill below Roscoe to be a high productivity wild trout stream (I'm sure some wild browns would always prosper) may not work out.

 

[willowhead]

Jeff, your right, there's always consquences........and ramifications. Ramifications and consquences, ....conseguences and ramifications. Wouldn't bother me one bit to see the whole system go back to what it was originally, Brook Trout, and nothin' but Brook Trout. I'd love an all wild Brook Trout fishery. If folks had enough forsight, and dedication to get it established, and a willingness to make the sacrifices, then i'd say they'd be entitled to a one fish per day reward. ONE, and ONLY one. mark..........