I am writing in response to the recent op-ed, “Management of state’s native fish needs reform” (Monitor Opinion, July 27).
As the executive director of a native fish conservation nonprofit, with a chapter in New Hampshire, much of my time is dedicated to the protection, preservation, and restoration of wild native fishes. I, and most of our members, are also avid recreational anglers.
While I applaud the groups for drawing attention to the plight of New Hampshire’s wild native fish, and for voicing their concerns about stocking and management of wild native fish resources, mixing animal welfare and science can muddy the water. For this exact reason, our group, Native Fish Coalition, does not advocate for fishing, just fish.
To be clear, most of what was presented in the article is accurate. And where subjective, it is as valid, or not, as the opposing position. It would be tough to argue that New Hampshire doesn’t have a stocking problem, or that wild native fish in New Hampshire are not receiving nearly enough protection. And as the authors note, the science behind fish is being ignored by those charged with protecting them.
New Hampshire’s wild native brook trout, the states official freshwater fish, face an uncertain future due to changes in our climate. The biggest immediate threats, however, are angler exploitation, stocking, and nonnative fish introductions. Exploitation drives stocking, and stocking often involves nonnative fish – brown and rainbow trout.
When it comes to trout, most lakes, ponds, rivers, and many large streams in New Hampshire are propped up through stocking. While they look healthy to the untrained eye, rivers such as the Ammonoosuc, Ellis, Israel, Peabody, Pemigewasset, Saco, and Swift are heavily stocked, often with nonnative brown and rainbow trout, and nearly devoid of wild native brook trout.
The stocking of the lower Wildcat River is just the tip of the iceberg. New Hampshire Fish and Game has adequate data to support the suspension of stocking on many other waters as well, yet they refuse to act. And to be clear, according to recent surveys, the lower Wildcat far exceeds the Wild Trout Management inclusion criteria.
Stocking is a Band-Aid, and in many cases in New Hampshire, unnecessary due to the presence of wild fish, which if protected accordingly could provide a recreational fishery. It takes money away from long-term solutions such as habitat restoration, reclamation, land acquisition, and infrastructure. Stocking can also result in the establishment of nonnative fish, and the introduction of diseases, viruses, and parasites, as of course competition for food and space.
One area where I disagree with the authors is the implication that all sportsmen want stocking, or the kind of fishing stocking provides. Many sportsmen don’t fish, many anglers don’t fish for trout, and many trout anglers shun stocked trout. Like the animal welfare folks, those who want wild native fish are also being ignored by New Hampshire Fish and Game.
New Hampshire’s Wild Trout Management program has best-in-class inclusion criteria and protections. It’s based on the presence of a documented and measurable level of wild fish, and it prohibits stocking, while imposing tackle restrictions and catch-and-release to protect the fish from exploitation. Unfortunately, the program has been sparsely implemented. At just 13 streams and three ponds, it is protecting just a fraction of the state’s wild native trout, and potential wild trout. And as noted, Fish and Game has not added a water in 13 years.
There is nothing wrong with the Wild Trout Management program. The waters so designated are no longer stocked and the fisheries have remained stable since their inclusion. They offer a kind of angling not found elsewhere in the state: easily accessible wild native trout in natural abundances. They cost the state nothing, and in fact save Fish and Game money, as they do not have to be stocked.
Failing to expand the Wild Trout Management program, abolishing it, or watering it down as some believe is going to happen, would be a disservice to anglers who want wild fish, those who are forced to pay for stocked fish they don’t take advantage of, and the resource itself. The program is biologically sound and economically beneficial, as wild trout are the only reason some of us come to New Hampshire to fish.
While some anglers are admittedly opposed to the restrictions associated with the Wild Trout Management program, much of the resistance comes from within Fish and Game. And no user group should have everything their way. The refusal to protect wild native trout results in Fish and Game stocking over wild fish by rule not exception. And doing so just makes matters worse, as it further degrades wild trout populations.
Protected accordingly, wild trout waters could offer free, and many feel superior, angling, and something many can’t find in their home state. Wild native fish fill an important niche in ecosystems, and everything benefits by their presence. There is no downside to wild native fish beyond asking for some reasonable concessions from anglers and Fish and Game to support sustainable angling.
Some will try to discredit, or ignore, the article because of where it came from: animal welfare groups. They will only see the underlying goal, to abolish all recreational fishing. They will not see, or will be afraid to acknowledge, the validity of the statements made, even though we sportsmen would benefit by the changes being proposed.
After 20-plus years of advocating for wild native fish, I’ve learned to accept help from wherever I can get it. This article was helpful, as it brought the issue of stocking and fisheries management in New Hampshire into the mainstream. I am not worried about incrementalism, as in the end, society as a whole will decide the fate of recreational angling, not any specific group.
(Bob Mallard is the executive director of the Native Fish Coalition, with chapters in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.)