A lot of people are willing to take potshots at Orvis for their rapid expansion into markets far away from fly fishing, but I’ve always admired their willingness to put their fundraising muscle to work for environmental causes.
Interestingly, they’re now threatening to not raise money to restore habitat on the Battenkill – if non-native rainbow trout are stocked in a controversial state program.
I’d classify this as a gutsy move, and probably the right one. Adding even sterile rainbow trout to an already depleted (and fragile) brown trout fishery might make anglers happy in the short run, but will only delay the recovery of the browns.
[tags]orvis, fly fishing, battenkill, recovery, rainbow trout[/tags]
Thanks… we think it’s the right thing to do. The state has proposed stocking a thousand fish a year into a relatively short stretch of river. It is hard to see how this could NOT have an impact on a strained populaion of wild fish that could very well be poised for recovery… the habitat restoration project can be effective… IF given time…
Thanks for the support, I’ll make sure other folks here get a chance to see this as well.
James Hathaway
Conservation Manager
The Orvis Company
James Hathaway(Quote)
Good luck with the Battenkill. Fishery that famous deserves a fair shot at recovery.
I’m off to go fishing in my Orvis waders and chest pack (filled with high-quality Orvis products), not that I’m trying to score any corporate points or anything…
Tom Chandler(Quote)
What they fail to mention is that the wild trout population they are trying so hard to recover is not only NOT native to the Battenkill, but not even native to North America. Brown trout were introduced to the Battenkill and other rivers on the east coast in the late 19th century. All these rivers contained Brook Trout which are native to the east coast. These trout however, were in real trouble as the rivers were becoming more and more polluted due to the industrial revolution.
I just find it very ironic that they are making a big deal out of the possible stocking of non-native rainbow trout when the browns themselves are non-native.
Brian
Heddon17(Quote)
Hi Brian-
That’s true about the stocking in the 1800s, but it is not true that Orvis neglected to mention the fact.
Actually, our press packets mentioned just that and we had a discussion about this in our press conference. Much of that was left out of the stories that came out… which is understandable as there is only so much a reporter can write before losing the audience, I imagine.
The habitat restoration work benefits both the Browns and Brookies… to introduce a thousand fish a year may eliminate any chance the Kill has of remaining a self-sustaining, wild fishery.
It would be a shame if the river became dependent on stocking in order for it to have any fish at all.
Thanks, Brian.
James
James Hathaway(Quote)
I noticed that the Bennington newspaper writer said the Brown trout were “natives” – which obviously isn’t the case. I assumed that was reporter error, since it’s not one conservation types would make.
Brian – do you think that stocking rainbows would help or hurt the population of browns? The assesments for the Battenkill suggest the loss of cover is to blame for declining populations, so my assumption was that stocking additional trout before the habitat was improved would simply put more pressure on the existing population.
Did I get that right?
Tom Chandler(Quote)
A couple things – Orvis should be commended for making a stand here. As someone that contributed to as well as assisted in raising funds for the project I certainly didn’t think that I was buying into poorly conceived stocking program …
Regarding brown trout and thier native / non native status. Lets be honest. Brown trout are part of the landscape in American trout fishing and we are better for it. Very few (if any) of the folks that read this can likely trace their roots back to native American roots but I think it is fair to say we are part of the landscape now ….
If you want to split hairs the brown trout is not native but at the very least it is naturalized. And specifically with regards to the Battenkill the state discussed ceasing stocking activities as far back as the 1940′s and the river has not been stocked in 30+ years. That is wild enough for me and I think most biologists to consider the Battenkill brown trout as wild. Non-native or natrualized … take your pick.
With regards to whether or not it is a big deal to stock – you better believe it is; on many levels. First and most simply; the habitat does not warrant the introduction of additional trout be they brook, brown or rainbow trout. Putting more fish over this population will solve no problems but very possibly create additional ones.
Secondly, there are only 5 designated wild trout streams in Vermont and it seems to me like you fight like hell to keep it that way and if in the end you are wrong then it is not for lack of effort and stocking can always be used in the future.
Finally, despite what some of the naysayers will have you believe the fishing on the Battenkill is not so bad. Are the trotu as plentiful as say the Beaverkill or as big as those in the Delaware – no. But there is a solid brook trout fishery (our NATIVE fish) and where cover is good brown trout do well. Friends of mine and I caught between 30 – 40 trout over the last few days on the ‘kill ranging from 6 inch brookies through to and including an 18 inch brown trout.
The Battenkill never was nor probably never will be a river to rack up lots of fish – it’s a tough river! But it’s intimate nature, varied water types (ranging from small headwaters, to meadow spring creek to classic freestone with a twist of limestone) and beautiful setting will continue to make this a very special place for trout fisherman.
So, it is worth fighting for!!!!
Doug Lyons(Quote)
Doug;
It’s true the brown trout is wild and reproducing naturally, and I have some questions (that maybe Heddon17 could answer) about the wisdom of introducing rainbows into a degraded, already-stressed environment that’s currently occupied by native brook trout (in addition to the browns)
It seems like a manifestly bad idea.
But I’m not at all sure that’s the issue here.
If Orvis – and the other private entities funding the restoration – began this project with the idea that the restoration project would keep the Battenkill as “wild” as possible, is it their right to insist on “wildness” – or stop spending?
What are the rights of private conservation groups funding public projects when their goals come into conflict with those of the state?
It’s an interesting question, and this issue interests me enough to pull together another post real soon.
Tom Chandler(Quote)
Regarding the wisdom of stocking (any hatchery-reared trout) over a wild trout population, we recently hosted a guest speaker, Dr. Robert Bachman, PhD in behavioural ecology, to join us and speak on that same issue. (Dr. Bachman is a noted authority on the topic, having done his PhD while studying the interactions of wild and hatchery brown trout on PA’s Spruce Creek over several years; he is past Director of Fisheries, Director of Fish & Wildlife, & Chief of Freshwater Fisheries for the state of MD, and is currently the Director of Research for the Friends of the Upper Delaware River (http://www.fudr.org)). You can find an overview of and a few details from his presentation on our website below. For the record – his presentation was eye opening (it should be required reading/viewing for all state & federal F&W biologists.) His presentation included slides & film footage of stocked hatchery trout displacing wild trout from their feeding lies. Most important — the study is backed by sound scientific evidence and data gathered over a multi-year period, so there’s not much room for disputing the negative impact of the stockies on the wild fish. But check it out and see for yourself (you can find the link under “Past Events”.)
For more details on the coordinated efforts to help conserve, protect & restore the Battenkill (and other cold-water fisheries in our SW corner of VT), see our web site below.
The Southwestern Vermont Chapter of Trout Unlimited
http://www.TUSWVT.org
pkb(Quote)
With regards to private groups rights when restoration activity is being done and the actions of the state …. I believe that the state had an obligation when this project was developed that there was a chance that trout might be stocked. That’s only fair. The river has been managed as a wild trout stream for 30+ years and to move away from that is a major shift in focus; one worthy of disclosure to people willing to put in $90,000.
I went around to various TU chapters raising money and they (along with myself) were under the impression that wild trout management would stay in place.
The rainbow trout that would be going in the river next year will be two yr old fish so the consideration to put these in pre-dates discussions regarding teh habitat restoration so the state cannot claim that at the time that the habitat project was being developed they did not know.
So, I think the state has a serious obligation to disclose the plans they may have so that those willing to contribute can let the state know up front that habitat restoration is for wild fish.
With all that said, the meeting last week was heavily attended and the vast majority of those who spoke were in favor of continued wild trout management with restoration as the focus.
Doug Lyons(Quote)
@PKB: A couple weeks ago I linked to a Vermont blog which featured a synopsis of Bachman’s work, which was interesting to say the least. His observations of fatter hatchery trout displacing wild fish from prime lies was interesting – and against the backdrop of other problems with hatchery trout (disease, vulnerability, etc), doubly damming.
@Doug: One person remarked to me Orvis’ actions seemed “heavy handed,” but frankly, I’m glad Orvis flexed their financial muscle and helped head off stocking.
The concept of recreational use (C&R) vs. extractive use (C&K) lies at the root of a lot of fisheries conflicts.
Tom Chandler(Quote)