South’s Tailwaters to Lose Hatcheries

[Zach Matthews]

Bad news guys:

“Funding for National Fish Hatchery Operations (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) will be reduced by $6.28 million in 2012. Six of the nine national fish hatcheries to be eliminated or substantially reduced are located in the Southeast. These include the Chattahoochee Forest NFH (GA), Dale Hollow NFH (TN), Erwin NFH (TN), Greers Ferry NFH (AR), Norfork NFH (AR), and the Wolf Creek NFH (KY). The Southeast Region requires $4.5 million for these six mitigation hatchery operations to be fully funded in FY 2012.”

This is despite an overall increase in the FWS’s budget.  

I’ve written the following letter to Sen. John Boozman, who I have known for a long time, as well as to Chris Wood, the CEO of TU.  If you live in any of the southern states, I’d advise you to also write your senators.

Zach

April 25, 2011

Sen. John Boozman, M.D.
320 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC, 20510

Dear Dr. Boozman:

[brian king]

Thanks for posting this. I will be sending letters to my representatives. If it’s possible, I would like to hear his response.

[Bob Riggins]

I hate to be a contrarian, but why doesn’t Arkansas fund the hatcheries since the economic benefits acrue to the state?

[Zach Matthews]

That is true Bob, and I agree with you that the states these hatcheries are located in should fund the hatcheries themselves.

[Mike Anderson]

I agree that the states who benefit should be funding the lions share as well. What I’m not certain about is what happens to the mitigation money that the COE/TVA/Fed Gov owes each state for the damage done to native fisheries by building the dams. That money shouldn’t dry up no matter what.

[Bob Riggins]

Mike,

Could you expand on this a little?

[Mike Anderson]

Good luck finding info on the web about it but basically USACOE or TVA or the feds agreed to pay for stocking of cold water fish to mitigate the native fish killed off by the cold water discharge and the constant rising and lowering of the rivers below the dams.

[Zach Matthews]

Mike is exactly right.

[John Stanley]

Wonder if this will result in more brown trout in the tailwaters?

[craig phillips]

I’m glad to see this discussion going the direction Bob took it.

[Zach Matthews]

A better way to go about this would have been to taper off the federal funding to give the states time to put some fundraising measures in place, rather than to just cut it all off on October 1.  But in principle I agree with you Craig.

Zach

[Zach Matthews]

John –

If, hypothetically, stocking were to be totally discontinued, we’d need some much more robust catch and release regulations in almost all southern tailwaters in order to prevent a major reduction in overall trout numbers of all species.  The one exception might be the Little Red, which has robust brown trout reproduction.

I am seeing pretty variable numbers of trout per mile on the White, ranging from 3,000 to 7,500 depending on the area.  Let’s go with the biggest possible number.  There are 125 miles of fishable trout water in Bull Shoals Tailwater.  125 X 7500 = 937,500 trout in that river at any given time.

That’s a lot right?

Well.  They stocked exactly 1,181,174 trout in 2010 according to the AGFC.

So, they’re restocking 126% of the trout in the river (according to the very most generous estimate of trout per mile) *yearly*.

If they discontinued stocking and didn’t adjust the regs to change the take rate, those fisheries would be devastated very quickly.

Zach

[Roy Conley]

There is no such thing as a healthy viable fishery, which is unprotected, that lies within easy driving distance of 5 or 6 million people.  IE. we are fully capable of loving any fishery to death.  

But political facts will come into play within the states.  Georgia for example, will not permit slot limits, reduced catches and the like.  The State General Assembly is just against these things.  Rural South Georgia political influences being what they are.  By the time a case could be made to get the politicians aboard, the stream damage will have long ago been done.

I think a better solution is to require the dam operators to pay for the cost.  Raise the electricity fees to cover the costs.  Then the users, benefactors of the dams, will be paying the costs. This could be done administratively with the Federal Government.  

Just one man’s opinion.

[bene]

This is an unfortunate situation for several reasons.
In Arkansas for example:
1)  The legislative session is over and the appropriation for the 2012 has already been decided.
2)  The current political climate is basically a “No” to any increases in budgets.  So much so that the appropriation for the state deaf school was voted down twice over a $6,000 budget increase due to an increase in rental cost for facilities.
3)  Fly fishers and conservationists are in a minority and most of the fishing citizen’s in Arkansas view our lakes and rivers as supermarkets.  The well heeled fisher folk might not mind a $50 license or trout stamp but most would view that as absurd.  They don’t spend that kind of money on all their gear combined.
4)  Game and Fish has sold out to the gas companies for the tune of about $30 million dollars.  They could easily use this money to support the hatcheries….but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
5)  The voting record of our legislators (both state and federal) speaks for itself in respect to environmental and conservation issues.  We can’t pass regulations to ensure water quality but we can pass legislation to ensure you can carry your gun to church.
6)  We can’t get reliable information concerning water levels and generation.  People’s safety is continuously put at risk and we have drownings or near drownings every year as a result.  I don’t think these same people are too worried about the fish in the river.

Sorry for the dome and gloom post but I can’t say I have much faith that anything will be done and the attitude of “we have to start somewhere” prevails.  It might be a good time to start tying small mouth patterns.

[Zach Matthews]

Hey Ben –

I appreciate the post; I learned several new things.

[John Stanley]

Tennessee has had luck stoping the stocking of brown trout in South Holston Tailwater.  The last stocking of brown trout in South Holston was in 2004.  The trick is to protect the areas for brown trout to spawn in and the brown trout during the winter spawn.

[Bob Riggins]

This is an interesting topic.  I had never considered the mitigation aspect of the stocking.  This does throw in another wrinkle.  I don’t think it would benefit anyone to have a dead zone in the tailwaters.  Probably the best solution is for the Feds to donate the facilities to the states as their mitigation obligation and let the states run them for economic benefits.

I think the economic impact argument for funding could go a long way when you consider job creation and tax revenues generated.  Both are major concerns of state government in the present economy.

[Zach Matthews]

Tailwaters are something of a redheaded stepchild.

[bene]

Thanks Zach…I realize this could easily turn into a nasty political discussion and not one for a fishing board.

As far as taking action goes:

[steve watkins]

This is a response from an email sent to the Rep. Crawford.

[Author]

Posts