Stop Steelies, Browns Salmon Stocking? [Archive] - Fly Fishing Forum

: Stop Steelies, Browns Salmon Stocking?

12-23-2002, 06:52 AM
I just heard about a draft being circulated by "our friend", TU.
Basically, they have "joined up" with Great Lakes United to put pressure on senators, congressmen, etc. to try to restore the Great Lakes to their pristine state, and original fish species. A "quickie" sketch of what they want to do is:

1. Stop stocking exotics (e.g. Pac. salmon.Steelhead, Browns, etc.)

2. Restore original fish (lakers, burbot, sculpin, coastal brookies, yellow perch, bloaters, etc.)

3. Amend existing law to prevent introduction of "exotics" (salmon, steel and browns, etc.)

4. Make it federal mandate so that State agencies must comply.

I am procuring a copy of the original draft, and will forward it. In the meantime, I am NOT going to renew my TU membership, etc.


12-23-2002, 06:58 AM

Yes I would like to see that and will watch in my TU mgazine and other email newsletter for this.

What the Hxxx are they thinking sometimes I wonder about these purist stuff goes way to far. Besides it will never happen with the commercial sport fishing $$$ the andramous non native fish have brought to the great lakes.

Just remember the steelhead were stocked in the 1880s.

They must be atlantic salmon purists who want that species to have a chance again in Lake Ontario where it was once native.

Obviously you know which way vote goes on this one.

PM Out

12-23-2002, 07:33 AM
Hal, I am getting a copy of the draft from a member of another site - You have to scroll down to hit on the "click here" in bold print, then hit the first topic. He gives a little more detail. (Seven points, in all).

I think he is a charter captain - they have a lot to lose if this thing gets legs. I have e-mailed him to get a copy of the original draft, as he offered.

I am beginning to think that TU is falling into the tree hugger and Friends of Animals camp of eco-terrorists! Too bad - but you are right - "purists" can get carried away.

Incidentally, one of the problems with recovery of atlantics - atlantic salmon feed on alewives (among others), which result in a "vitamin blocker" in the fish producing limited stocking success. (I forget the details, but I believe it is a B vitamin derivative). Other salmonids are less susceptible to this.

I understand that Great Lakes United carries a lot of political clout on BOTH sides of the border - I guess it's up to us to turn public opinion the right way!


12-23-2002, 08:14 AM
Hey thats a fairly aggressive position, I am supriesed that TU has taken such a definitive position on the issue of introduced stock.
I am looking forward to this disscussion it will be a nice break from the normal problems of the West Coast Salmon Wars.
As to quitting TU because of this position, I would suggest just the opposte get in involved and learn all you can about how and why they came to take that position and then work towards either modifying the position or accepting it.
With all the problems that are fisheries resources are faced with today its not really a good time to br dropping association with "the oldest defender of the trout", over a policy statement!

12-23-2002, 08:20 AM

Found it and read it, interesting, that will never fly in the great lakes due to the current sport fishery. TU needs to focus on saving our many rivers that are at risk and get off this non native stuff IMHO.

Interesting on the atlantics there if they ever get reestablished there in any numbers I will be out for sure. Lets hope for the best.

Alewife issue and atlantic salmon was new to me.

I think trying to have the atlantics spawn at the same fall time period with the kings, cohos, and browns is just to much competition for their already very limited numbers in the GL tribs. Thank god the steelhead spawn in the late winter and spring.


Keep us posted on developments.

PM Out

12-23-2002, 08:36 AM
The great lakes is an inland ocean system that has a huge capability to produce gamefish as proven over the years. Whether indigenous species or exotics, I would think that it's yield would be great if as much energy went into producing native species as does into exotics.

If I were a stakeholder in this argument, I would clearly argue in favor of restoring native species and I take a stand with TU on this one all the way.

IMHO - to say that native atlantics, brookies, lakers, and the vast array of species that once filled the lakes is less desirable or important than the put-and-take pacific species is a sad indicator of the mentality behind the fishery.

Maybe it's not practical to try this on all lakes, but it seems that there is currently ZERO focus on native species that any progress in that direction is better than none. A phased, fully qualified step-by-step approach could do no harm.

Look where the distribution of browns for sport purposes got us - whirling disease and it's impacts on our native american trout.

It's not about sport or personal indulgence, it's about respecting and preserving what God gave us - and the responsibility that comes with it.


12-23-2002, 09:06 AM
You have it exactly right.
We sportsmen sometimes don't realize that we can be part of the problem. That the non native fish we introduce or encouraged to be introduced over the years is a form of polution different from the steel mills of Gary, Indiana but still it is a form of polution.

Again with many sportsmen it comes down to catching when in this case and many others across the country should come down to the entire experience. Give TU great credit for what they are doing across the country from restoring native cuts in Wyoming to what they envision for our great lakes.

I hope our great lake friends will take the needed time and think about why they fish their local waters and that just maybe those waters will really become home waters when the native fish is king again.

12-23-2002, 09:18 AM
I think you're on the wrong side of this one. The Great Lakes will never be "pristine" and support their native species again unless we do away with all human habitation around them. We would have to totally eliminate the cities of Green Bay, Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Rochester, Toronto, Montreal, etc. to name a few, do away with all habitation and farming, etc. and create wilderness areas within 100 miles of the lakes, not to mention disrupting too many people's way of life.

I guess it boils down to fishing for a select few elites, or fishing for the masses.

Choose sides VERY CAREFULLY on this one - I still have an open mind until I read the original document!

I am a retired chemist, and did a lot of environmental improvement in my day, including rivers. I am open to anything reasonable, but not dumb and shortsighted!


Dble Haul
12-23-2002, 09:18 AM
There's a reason why certain species are native to an area and why they thrive's basic evolution and ecology. To say that an organization such as TU should "get off this non-native stuff" is like saying that doctors should stop looking for disease cures and simply continue treating the symptoms.

The balance of nature works. Certain areas can sustain non-native species, but it's almost always better for the indigenous species if non-natives are not introduced. It's simple biology.

Will everyone agree on this? Hell no. :rolleyes:

12-23-2002, 09:59 AM
BobK et. al. -

Let's not confuse the real discussion with rhetoric. No one in their right mind would think we could have a "pristine" G/L system anymore, that's not the issue.

Even less pertinent is "elitism". Why is it elite to try to restore native species? Would an equal number of atlantics, lake-run brookies, lakers and other native species be less of a working man's quarry or more so? More elite or less? Steelhead and steelheading is as elite as it gets in my book; it seems the masses want to eat cake. If it's really about fish for the masses, let's introduce tilapia.

It would be a miracle and victory for sportsmen if TU is able to accomplish awareness and some isolated progress in the restoration of native species in the region. It would help if some honorable anglers stood by this organization that has done so much for us.

I agree that the restoration of native species is the right thing to work toward in the GL and everywhere in the world. I am really surprised that sportsmen would react this way as if it posed some kind of threat.

12-23-2002, 11:03 AM
Well if TUs agenda is now to restore all non native trout and salmon cold water species to U.S. cold water fisheries they should start with restoring brook trout, atlantic salmon, and graying, etc.. and remove the non native brown trout that were stocked starting in the 1880s which are now pervasive through out the U.S..

Browns are not native to the U.S. but there stocking has been highly successful just like the pacific salmon and steelhead have been to the great lakes. Maybe we should remove the non native browns and rainbows from the Beaverkill, Willowemuc, Pere Marquette, Ausable, Battenkill, etc and spend millions of dollars and decades trying to restore eastern brook trout and maybe even michigan grayling.

Will be watching TU to see just what there agenda is these days.

With all of the american rivers and fisheries on the endangered list impacting native and non native trout and salmon, why would TU spend precious time and limited money on trying to change a healthy non native fishery like the great lakes ?

They will never be successful on this issue in the great lakes, believe me and there are much higher cold water native and non native U.S. trout and salmon fishery issues for them to address.

Must be some political and corporate economic interests driving this, we will be watching this one for sure.

My 2 cents on this one

PM Out

P.S. Happy holidays from the great lakes in spite of this illogical thinking from a major trout and salmon conservation organization.

12-23-2002, 11:09 AM
You said it best..."IMHO - to say that native atlantics, brookies, lakers, and the vast array of species that once filled the lakes is less desirable or important than the put-and-take pacific species is a sad indicator of the mentality behind the fishery" You may or may not know just how sad the mentality can be. We are at least 10 years behind in terms of fisheries issues thinking. I wrote to TU this morning and asked them directly and specifically where they stand on the issue. I'll post response when I get it.


12-23-2002, 11:58 AM
Too bad you guys are limiting your thinking - this is not restoring species - the lake habitat has changed so much that it's highly doubtful that it will work, and is esentially courting disaster!

I would LOVE to see the native species return. In the same vein, I have a highly technical education and a lot of work behind me that gives me a little vision to what is needed.
It was a totally different habitat that exists today. I won't go into detail (I will, if pressed!), but just look around you.

For starters, you would have to poison the lakes and their tribs to start from scratch. How long would it take to recover to the point where we could even begin putting "desired" species in? Well, try a couple of lifetimes.

Then, we have to get rid of all the cities, towns and people, dams, ad nauseum.

When our species goes extinct (sometime in the next zero to 200,000 years from the Yellowstone Caldera eruption which WILL occur), or maybe a passing asteroid will hasten it, then the lakes and rivers will revert.

For now, all you will accomplish will be to waste more taxpayer's money by pouring it down a hole.


12-23-2002, 12:42 PM
I hate to get involved in this one...

What is TU's stance on the introduced species out west in the Henry's Fork? Silver Creek? Madison? Missouri? Man o man have I heard quite a defense when it comes to these streams, yet, 99% of their fish are introduced from California and Europe. What gives???

Juro- if you are going to take such a hard lined stance on this issue of restoring the earth, and it fishies, to what evolution provided, then let's take it to the next level and extrapolate out what you are saying and how it should also apply to human terms. Put your money where your mouth is- quit your job, pack up the family and migrate back to Europe/Scandinavia. And while you are at it, get the rest of the human population to follow suit.

Sound absurd?

Unless you live your life, beyond any shadow of a doubt, completely non consumptive and in 100% perfect balance with the earth, then you have already compromised your argument.

Enough on this.

12-23-2002, 12:43 PM
This is old memory time only:

Something tickles the back of my mind on why the Salmon/Steelhead were introduced into the Great Lakes. Remember something about one, or more, of the lakes being over run with a small fish (Alwaies, or something like that). Huge numbers would die and wash up on the beaches.

The salmon/steelhead were planted as an experiment to control the population(s) of these fish. It worked.

12-23-2002, 02:44 PM
We all realize that this subject is a hot one and one that will pop up more often than not in the future. From re introduction of native fish and hatchery fish going by the wayside it will be a hot item.
We as sportfishermen will have to look deep and find out why we really fish.

In the 1960's the great lakes were just about dead. US and Canadian citizens along the lakes worked so hard at bringing back the lakes from the dead. It became a pride issue for all citizens across North America. Why must we stop now? There were a lot of industry and their supporters that said it was too late to bring the lakes back so leave them as they are. If we had done so then those grand lakes would still be dead.

It has come time to complete the job started over 40 years ago and yes it will probably take more than 40 more years to complete. To say that the native fish can not be brought back is the same as what the industrialist said in the 60's about bringing the lakes back. Are we seeing defeat in some of our sportsmen that it can't be done, that it's too great of a project to complete? If so they are wrong because just getting life back into the lakes probably took ten times the effort it will take to restore the native fish. Maybe this defeatest stand is something totally different. What are sportsmen who would oppose such an idea be so concerned about? Truth now.

Wouldn't it be increadible if the Henery's Fork, Silver Creek, the Madison all went back to native fish. Can you imagine such wonderful rivers to be fished without all the ego that now wades those banks and in such large numbers. That goes for our eastern and mid western rivers also.

12-23-2002, 02:49 PM
Inland, with all due respect you've totally lost me on this one.

I read this as "there is no such thing as success in degrees, only absolute extremes so live absurdly or shut up". This kind of argument is void of reason or hope, and makes no sense to me. Futhermore if you read what I posted it contradicts what I said.

I am not a spokesman nor am I a critic of TU, I am simply expressing my opinion on the matter (despite a tendency to be misquoted). I don't know their policies on the rockies, and yes I do believe we should have never introduced brown trout to the US.

As far as your emigration example - there is a fundamental difference you have chosen to ignore... no one is manipulating us into or out of existence, we are making the choices to move, leave, survive or perish.

Do the native fish species of North America control where they survive? Hardly. In fact it's by our hand that they have perished. If there were some greater power causing our demise, would you not have the passion to resist it, the pain of being incapable of resisting it, and would it be wrong if some portion of these superior beings cared that you existed or not? That is the "extrapolation" of which I speak.

I see nothing wrong in some progress being made toward their recovery by our hand, afterall - we caused their demise.


Originally posted by inland
I hate to get involved in this one...

What is TU's stance on the introduced species out west in the Henry's Fork? Silver Creek? Madison? Missouri? Man o man have I heard quite a defense when it comes to these streams, yet, 99% of their fish are introduced from California and Europe. What gives???

Juro- if you are going to take such a hard lined stance on this issue of restoring the earth, and it fishies, to what evolution provided, then let's take it to the next level and extrapolate out what you are saying and how it should also apply to human terms. Put your money where your mouth is- quit your job, pack up the family and migrate back to Europe/Scandinavia. And while you are at it, get the rest of the human population to follow suit.

Sound absurd?

Unless you live your life, beyond any shadow of a doubt, completely non consumptive and in 100% perfect balance with the earth, then you have already compromised your argument.

Enough on this.

12-23-2002, 03:09 PM
This is one of the problems I alluded to. One of the simple facts that have to be accomplished is this:
1. Thiamin (vitamin B-1) is necesary in spawning salmonids for successful reproduction.
2. Thiaminase is an enzyme that inhibits ability in salmonids to absorb thiamin.

Thiamin is critical to development of eggs and fry.

Alewives (or "sawbellies") are loaded with thiaminase! They are one of the forage base fish for salmonids.

New York State has been conducting studies on this for a number of years, wondering why Atlantics had poor returns, and couldn't spawn with any success, even though they have been stocked in numbers for the past 20 years plus.

The most recent test that I am aware of is this:
6 return atlantics were captured. They were pampered and kept in clean water dosed with thiamin until ready to spawn. (3 died in this "storage). The remaining 3 did successfully spawn, and they now have 20,000 eggs which will be reintroduced into the system.

Incidentally, this affects all salmonids to varying extent. They are also running studies on rainbows (steelies) to determine the effect of thiamin injections during spawning runs versus spawning success.

This points out the need to totally clean out the lake of all species before starting out a restoration. Just from the sheer volume, the varying "turnover" rates for the different great lakes, etc., this is an exercise in futility.

Not that I am against the basic idea - it is just that man does not have the ability with today's technology to do this. Someday - maybe, but not now or in the foreseeable future.

Leave well enough alone until you have the tools and technology to perform the task successfully!


12-23-2002, 03:46 PM
Bob K,

Good post on the Alewives. Were Alewives introduced to the great lakes? What did the native Alantics eat before the Alewives when Alantics were part of the system?

12-23-2002, 04:03 PM
Alewives, themselves an exotic specis in the Great Lakes, were introduced during the 1950's if I am not mistaken, with the exception of Lake Ontario where they are believed to have navigated from the Hudson through the boat canal system or mixed in the stocking of shad that occurred there as well in those days. In any case, alewives in Lake Ontario did not thrive until the disappearance of lake trout and atlantic salmon due to overfishing and habitat destruction. In Lake Michigan, they have become the primary biomass in the lake since their introduction in the 50's.

Pacific species were introduced largely to control alewife populations according to historical accounts to stop the massive die-offs where millions of fish created health hazards along the shorelines, in addition to the recreational opportunities.

Today, although lake trout have been supplanted by hatchery programs, but they are unable to sustain themselves without intervention in what was once their most prevalent habitat on earth - the Great Lakes.

So I guess it depends on where you perceive the vicious circle to have begun. Before the alewife -or- after?

12-23-2002, 05:47 PM
Thanks Juro,

This may sound crazy But: The Alewive problem could be taken care of in no time at all without poisioning the lakes. Simply start a commercial fishery again for the sole purpose of feeding the Aquaculture, chicken and pork industry. Remember 3 pounds of forage fish for one pound of growth in pen raised salmon. The commercials could wipe out Alewives in no time flat if there is money to be made and if there is a by catch on other non native fish so what. I know that will enrage sport fishermen and all the industry related to it but.
a key would be identifying what was native forage fish and making sure they would be able to come back when the time is right. I know there are many other problems to deal with but I believe in the people of the United States and Canada that if they put their minds, hearts and souls into it they could make it work.

And for the great lakes boys I know this is not my territory and should keep my nose out of it but after many years of going along with the masses and believing in hatcheries, non native trout so I could fill my own ego card it's time to look at some changes in beliefs. I also feel we will have to end our own NW hatchery program and shut down all sport fishing sometime in the future on our wild native steelhead.

Do we dare imagine how big the native Brook Trout could be in the great lakes. Anyone know what the lakes record is, how long ago it was caught and where it was caught?:eyecrazy:

12-24-2002, 12:54 AM

Don't get me wrong- I am not against restoration and conservation. I am certainly not against success in degrees, trudging forward is done one step at a time.

I am not the only one to get the same feeling from your posts this morning- BobK came to the same conclusion, albeit a 'little' ;) more politically written. It is basically going to require total elimination of man from the region to achieve the goal of restoration, even in varying degress of success, of the native fish species. The point of my rant this morning, are you willing to take it to that extreme? There is no way to poison the system without killing eveything in sight, the biomass is just too huge.

The genes from the Native Lake Ontario Atlantic Salmon are gone, they have been extinct for over 100 years. All of these attempts to restore are through feral strains of fish from Maine and New Brunswick. Right back to step one here- introduction of non native species. Unless, of course: a salmon is a salmon is a salmon. So how do you propose fixing this problem?

For the thiamin deficiency- what is Roger Greil doing up on the Soo to overcome this? His fish feed on alewives too and continue to return at a very high rate (around 5% SAR).

What about the beating the native chars take from the lampreys? Anybody know the full extent of the negative impacts from the zebra mussel invasion?????????????????

I guess my hesitancy to support TU on this latest crusade comes down to the size of it all. What is the realistic possibility of achieving the goal? About as good as seeing the lower Snake dams breached, which is about 1/1,000,000,000,000 the scale. What about the hypocrisy between calling for native only species management in the GL's and fully supporting the feral species swimming around the famous trout rivers of the mountain west (among all the other places in our country)? That is what irks me the most :mad:

12-24-2002, 08:56 AM
Lots of good replies, guys - My major problem on this proposal is simple - it is long on noble objectives, but totally void of the methods and techniques of doing the job! (Based on my personal experience as a Chemist, Chem. Engineer and Environmental Engineer, it was the usual problem we faced!)

If getting rid of the alewives was so easy, then how come we haven't been able to get a handle on carp? (That is another problem that we have to face, you know! These "spawn grazers" need elimination, too!) These lakes contain a VAST amount of water!

No one yet knows the effect of zebra mussels - or even how to control them! We do know that they consume large quantities of algae, etc. and limit the amounts of oxygen in areas of the lake, creating "dead zones" in the lakes, but control them? There are no methods to date. How about gobies - no one even seems to be concerned or give any thought to them, although limited studies have been done. Not to even mention the others from shipping (example - spiny fleas).

How 'bout the canals and the Seaway? We should eliminate them, too, and in that vein stop ocean shipping to the Midwest.

It's easy to propose the ideas - but implementation is the tough part. These guys should go to college, become scientists, and spend their efforts on SOLUTIONS, not on grandiose concepts and let someone else worry about the details.


12-24-2002, 09:46 AM
It's easy to propose the ideas - but implementation is the tough part. These guys should go to college, become scientists, and spend their efforts on SOLUTIONS, not on grandiose concepts and let someone else worry about the details.

Funny - there are two camps here, one saying "CAN'T" and the other saying "LET's TRY SOMETHING". If these guys "go to college" will they come out saying "CAN'T" as well? I haven't heard a single solution proposed by those in the "CAN'T" camp either, just a verdict of impossibility. Good thing others have tried despite the odds in the past, if not for them striped bass would be extinct and we'd still be building illegal dams without fish ladders on salmon rivers out west.


I agree with your point that it's hypocritical that an organization would be very pro-exotic in one region and pro-native in another. What led to the conclusion that TU is pro-exotics in the rockies?

Happy Holidays, thanks for the healthy debate

12-24-2002, 10:31 AM
These guys should go to college, become scientists, and spend their efforts on SOLUTIONS, not on grandiose concepts and let someone else worry about the details.

Actually TU has some of the most knowledgable fisheries biologists in the country working/volunteering for them. One of my good friends is working on his degree in fisheries biology and is active in TU and MDEQ. No offense, but, I would trust his opinion a whole lot more than that of a chemist. My 2. I have yet to get a response from TU regarding your statement. When I do I will post it. Merry Christmas Bob.


12-24-2002, 11:33 AM
In the original document, nothing was offered in a plan to implement. Just a grandiose scheme without any underlying science or methodology to back it up. My remarks stand.

By the way, who pays for this effort? The taxpayer? Another few billion bucks down the drain?

The fish and game departments have the rest of their respective states to worry about - and that includes other species of fish, non-trib streams, game, and declining budgets these days.

Not to be a spoil sport - just come up with a logical, scientific based plan, not a proposal based upon idealism. I personally would LOVE to see coaster brookies and atlantics restored, it's just that I see no mention of addressing with an action plan and funding for the problems that exist today.

I have successfully fished for "coasters" where no one thinks they exist (remote Adirondack lakes) with good success. Where? I won't tell you - that's why they still exist!


12-26-2002, 06:20 PM
Good day,
Introduction of Species is a result of Mans curiosity, not Natures way! Example; A species "overpopulates" an area, someone introduces another species to control it. Someone see's a species decline, they introduce a species thats "bigger and better". This is Mans doing. What we were intrusted with, originally, was not!
You are born into what you have to work with. Because a person or group wants to restore something to its original state, they should not be put down, or told to move back to where they came from. They are instead working to better the state of the area they are concerened with. This is a good thing!
Ever pull a pop or beer can from a stream or river? Ever picked up a peice of trash from a bank? You have contributed to the restoration of that waterway, helping to bring it back to its original state. These issues are all over the U.S., all over the world! Because someone wants to help turn the tide, does not mean that they will come tomorow with the "big nets" to scoop out all the "bad fishes", dumping huge vats of poisons into streams, or hurding vast 100's of thousands of people away in busses! It might just mean a better overall long term goal for the region as a whole!
Stocking in the G/L started in the 1880's? 120 years or so of this behaivor? It might take that long to "undo" this! But men and women who want to see any kind of largescale opperation like this take place, first have to say "hey, wait a minute" , and there opposers, who also have a voice, need to express the same cry!
For we are the great "forward thinkers" that the future generations will look back on and thank for the resulting better fisheries we leave to them!
Let us NOT be shortsited, this small post is not "enough"! Much more needs to be said on all issues regarding introduction of species, and native wild stocks!
You know where I stand, NO compromises!

12-26-2002, 09:08 PM

Let me use an example of why I think that it is folley to attempt to remove the exotic species from the lakes. About 12 years ago the Utah DWR attemped to poison Strawberry Reservoir to give it a fresh start. They used Rotenone to pull it off, and at the time it was the largest body of water to be poisoned- a mere drop in the bucket compared to the GL's. They did it very smart- all of the headwater streams were cleaned several times of ALL fish life. The main body of the reservoir was also treated to remove ALL fish. The plan was to eliminate the chubs that had taken the lake over reducing it's trout carrying capacity to almost nil. Once completed they reintroduced three species of fish- Kokanee salmon to eat the plankton, Bear Lake Cutthroat (a sub-species of the Bonneville strain that has survived to this day) which was selected because they tend to eat fish, and finally sterilized rainbow trout so they could not interbreed with the cutts. This was set up to compete against the chub if they were ever to return. It only took a couple of years, and yep the chubs were returning. While the management scheme to control them through predators is working to this day, they COULD NOT elminate the chub.

I am not against the 'idea' of restoration of the lakes. Do you understand how much water there is, and to the extent that it has been polluted? Do you know how many species of fish that need to be removed, let alone the invertebrates, mollusks, etc? Do you have any idea of the programs that have been put into place to conserve the native species? The last time I checked, the native Lake Char and Brook Char are not entirely extinct in the system, nor do I see them leaving anytime soon with the programs that are currently in place to see that they don't.

I am against spending millions and millions of dollars to accomplish little. Why not spend the same $$$ on restoration out west while there is still time to fix it???

You are born into what you have to work with. Because a person or group wants to restore something to its original state, they should not be put down, or told to move back to where they came from.
Since that statement is directed towards my offhand remark to Juro, I will try to clearly state where I was going with it.

Each day that you wake up and play on the computer, start your car, eat, drink that beer, shower, etc., etc., etc. you are contributing, in one way or another, to the degradation of our environment. Simple example: In your neck of the woods, the electricty that you use is more than likely generated by turbines contained with in the Columbia River hydro system. Do I need to go into the deleterious effects the dams have with the fish?

You stated in your post 'You know where I stand, NO compromises!'. Have you taken the time to understand how intertwined our modern life is with the items that destroy what we love, or believe to be right? If you are not part of the solution (living your life by avoiding all that damages), then you remain part of the problem- no matter how well intended you may be. Believe me, my intentions closely resemble yours, but I will not stand here and shout it out loud when I know that I am as much a part of the problem as the rest of society.

I would love nothing more than to see our planet put back together and find a harmonious balance between life of man and a natural ecosystem. But, realistically, is this going to happen?

12-27-2002, 07:04 AM
Inland is basically correct! I have seen smaller trout lakes (and all sources of water to and from them) poisoned systematically and repeatedly to get rid of competing species to the "native" brook trout here in the Adirondacks, yet, in a few years, the suckers, chubs, stunted perch and bullheads were again reducing trout populations and growth.

Yes, we all are consumers - we like electric lights, heated homes, cars, and ability to travel. (Do you have ANY IDEA how far 25 miles can be, if you don't have wheels?)

These same guys pushing these actions are the same cloth as the ones pushing electric cars, but don't want any more dams or power plants built! They think that electricity comes in boundless supply from the outlet on the wall.

Maybe if we went back to horses, kerosene lamps, iceboxes, coal or wood burning heat, etc. these guys would be happy.

To add to the confusion, I just checked NY State Dept. of Health's booklet, the "2002-2003 Health Advisories, Chemicals in Sportfish and Game". As an example, for Lake Ontario, for American eel, channel catfish, carp, lake trout over 25", brown trout over 20" and chinook salmon - Eat None - reason: PCBs, Mirex, Dioxin

For white sucker, rainbow trout, smaller lake trout, smaller brown trout and coho salmon over 25" - Eat no more than one meal per month - reason: PCBs, Mirex, Dioxin.

In addition, specific instructions are given as to cleaning and removing parts of these fish.

How well do brookies, atlantics, and the rest of the "native species" hold up to these? Or, alternatively, how do we remove these contaminants from the lake? All of these are unanswered questions. We are being asked to buy a "Pig in a Poke".

I would feel comfortable with a study to determine feasibility of returning native species, and with a realistic cost and benefit analysis performed by an independent group, other than "it sounds and feels good". After such a study, then a planning phase and "test" phase of limitedscope could be tried before jumping in with both feet.

Just my thoughts -



12-27-2002, 08:09 AM
Allow me to summarize:

Inland's post boils down to (1) citing yet another of man's failed attempts at playing God with nature and (2) if we live within modern lifestyles then we can be of no use in benefiting the state of our natural resources whatsoever.

BobK's post (a) repeats Inland's point #2 and adds (3) if it can't be expressed in dollars it's not worth doing at all.

Well, I agree that man's attempts to play with nature have been abysmal at best, horrible - we should stop! Exotics are a perfect example. In fact all of the ails of the Great Lakes have been a product of man.

I disagree with (2), those who are not living in caves can (and do) have a positive effect on the resources everyday. To say that we can't is an over-used argument that I hope people don't believe. We all have a right and obligation to make a difference, even if we drive our cars to clean up a stream, take a child fishing, or vote.

As far as point #3 - dollar values on nature - that's how we got into this mess. I have this discussion all the time with my non-outdoorsmen acquaintances, although I am surprised to be having it with fellow flyfishers this time. They argue that there is no such thing as "intrinsic" value in nature; if it can't be measured in terms of dollars and cents is has no value.

I don't consider myself all that well traveled compared to some folks I know, but when I think of the things my eyes have seen from the peaks of British Columbia to the mangroves on the Florida Keys to the deep wood streams of Maine, native coastal trout in Asia, mountain trout in the French Alps, stripers on my home flats on Cape Cod, native steelhead on my former home rivers in the Cascade Mountains, much, much more than I could list here all without a dollar value...

I will tell you what I tell them: "if I have to tell you there is intrinsic value, well then you just don't know"

12-27-2002, 02:46 PM
Good day,
I have a computer, powered by electricty from Bonniville. I have a car, and drive most days. I eat, don't drink beer, shower, etc, etc.
I was not around when society enacted these things, but I am working with what I have to make my use of them as proficiently as possible, as I hope each one of you are. But I care not to make this subject a pi**ing contest, for it is far to important for that!
I will use Bonniville as an example. I have visited the facility many times, walked through it , walked around it, I visit the hatchery there frequently, talk to the people involved, listen to there sides, seen the efects, good and bad, first hand. I have come to the conclusion that at this particular time, at this site, things CAN be made better! I look carefully at where I can best be a product of change, and make my stand.
Because it's NOT just about me. It's about the FUTURE! If you came across a car rolling towards a group of un-suspecting kids, would you try to stop it?, or just say "nothin I can do, just another one of societys problems, damn cars anyway" Well, this "derilict" auto of screwing with waterways and fish stocks is headed smack towards the future of flyfishers everywhere! And it's the look on there faces, when they dont see anyone trying to stop this, that scares me. Why would you NOT want to be a part of change for the better, whatever the cost? If a different waterway in a different area is your passion, then help that one, cause the bottom line is, THEY CAN ALL BE HELPED, THEY ALL NEED HELP! Work to make them better.
Gentlemen and women, this diolouge is the key ingredient! We need to discuss this, we need to tell others. We need to loose this apathetic attitude of "Ho Hum, Whatever".
I grew up in the great state of Ma. I always wondered why there were stone walls out in the middle of the woods. Found out the reason later in life. But what amazed me most, was how Nature bounced back! Mabye not to Historical standards, but 1000 % better than a raped landscape. Because its the Natural way, we have an obligation to do what we can to see it as close to that end as possible. Help. Each persons action, however small or large, contributes to a possitive end.
I cant tell you how gratefull I am for each one of you here at FFF, as I said before, we are the great forward thinkers!
I remain your friend in fish...

12-27-2002, 04:46 PM

Inland's post boils down to (1) citing yet another of man's failed attempts at playing God with nature and (2) if we live within modern lifestyles then we can be of no use in benefiting the state of our natural resources whatsoever.
1) The example given was to point out the extreme difficulty to undo. Now that man has messed up the GL's (and everywhere in between), how are we going to undo the messups? Now that new life has firmly entrenched itself into the lakes, it will be IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of it. The natural balance is gone. Go ahead and stop stocking the lakes. I have no problem with that, but how is that going to get rid of the now naturally reproducing populations of fish (et. all) that don't belong? How do those species interfere with the natives? When we can figure that out, then maybe there will be a viable plan to execute it. "Just Do It" is the easy part.

2) I did not say we could be of no use. Even while we may take the time to help out the environment (through stream cleanings, habitat restorations, etc) what are we doing on the other end of the candle?

You draw a line in the sand and say "No, you are not getting this stand of trees. No dams will be built here. No more salmon will be netted here". Are the people that cut the trees the evil ones? Is it the evil logging companies? Is it the evil power companies? Or how about the evil commercial fishing fleet? Or is it maybe our evil society that creates the demand for such goods so that people go through the trouble to get them? Don't get me wrong here, all of the above have done their share of marketing to help create that demand by providing the goods cheap. But, now that our society expects such items highly available and cheap, how do you go about changing that? Simple answer- raise the price to pay for the true cost (low impact with sustainability) of getting such goods to the local market or lumber yard. Hard answer- are the masses willing to pay for it? I think we both know that sooner or later, we ARE ALL going to pay for it.

In the end, I think we should spend our energies (and $$$'s) on projects that have a realistic chance at success.

12-28-2002, 07:28 AM
Look, guys, I will try to clarify my position.

1. I would have NO objections to running appropriate feasibility studies to determine what can be done with today's technology to clean up the mess of the last 300 years. This should be overseen by a non-partisan group of citizens (the "jury of peers" concept).

2. As the final part of this study, a COST ESTIMATE should be prepared for the "Purchasers" (The government - in reality, all of us) so we will know the cost, and do our own cost/benefit analysis.

3. At this point, a plan and time schedule for implementation of what can be done can be established.

The non-partisan citizens group should consist of "users", that is recreational, swimmers, boaters, fishermen (NOT JUST TROUT), commercial (shipping), etc. - and any RESIDENT taxpayer, water drinker and toilet flusher wishing to participate.

My problem is that the proposal is a mandate - not understanding IF or WHEN these things can be done. (I personally would like to see this long range goal accomplished - IF IT CAN BE DONE!)


12-28-2002, 01:17 PM
Good Day,
Excelent debate, Excelent! Now it is time for FFF to put together a point plan for this direction that T.U. is taking towards the G/L's future, if we chose. Can we get a hard copy of T.U's direction? Can it be posted here for all interested parties. I am sure that T.U is looking for input on this, a chance is here for FFF to help as a collective body. We have all brought up some great ideas, now it needs to go to the next step! Lets do this
Moderator, where do we go from here?

12-28-2002, 02:50 PM
I tried to get a statement out of TU by emailing them and asking for a reaction/position to the initial post. I have yet to hear from them. I am wondering if this may be a local chapter issue that is being explored. Either way, the only thing I have found on the subject is this post and BobK's link. Anyone have any more detailed information?

12-28-2002, 09:16 PM
Go back to the website, and get to the "reports" section. Find the thread headed by Capt. Snowshoe. Send him a "u2u" mail (that site's internal mail), give him your e-mail address, and he will be happy to send you a copy of the draft as an e-mail attachment. (that's how I got mine) It is entitled -

Great Lakes Action Agenda
Habitat and Biodiversity Section:
Native Fish Populations
December 2002

I don't have the computer savvy or I would have posted it on this site -

(Just a quick sort-of-related question for us all to ponder - when we stock original species, can they REALLY be considered "natives"?)


01-02-2003, 10:36 AM
Here ya go.

I am a native Michigander and a member of TU.* I have recently heard a rumor
with regards to our native/exotic fish population and am curious to find out if
there is any truth to it.* Here is the statement...

"I just heard about a draft being circulated by "our friend", TU.
Basically, they have "joined up" with Great Lakes United to put pressure on
senators, congressmen, etc. to try to restore the Great Lakes to their pristine
state, and original fish species. A "quickie" sketch of what they want to do is:
1. Stop stocking exotics (e.g. Pac. salmon.Steelhead, Browns, etc.)
2. Restore original fish (lakers, burbot, sculpin, coastal brookies, yellow
perch, bloaters, etc.)
3. Amend existing law to prevent introduction of "exotics" (salmon, steel and
browns, etc.)
4. Make it federal mandate so that State agencies must comply."

Any truth to this statement?* Thanks for any help.


Response (Joe McGurrin) - 01/02/2003 08:20 AM
No truth in the rumor. We've never heard of any draft being circulated. If such
a document exists, it isn't part of any existing TU policy or any being
considered. Only official policy involving TU and Great Lakes United is* a joint
resolution that supports a Great Lakes Fishery Commission plan to restore native
"coaster" brook trout in Lake Superior that was distributed over 3 years ago.
Neither the resolution nor the plan contained any of the 4 statements listed
above or any statements at all about introduced fish species.

Lets not turn this forum into a gossip outlet for conspiracy theories about TU please.


01-02-2003, 02:03 PM
I knew someone would have the inside line on this. Thanks.
My lesson learned, look before you lea.. ah, speak.

01-02-2003, 02:29 PM
I hope you are right. The draft document that I have, dated December 2002, essentially states the position I outlined exactly.
Maybe GLU is going to push this alone.
I will attend the meeting in Rochester NY where the NYSDEC will be presenting current proposals, and looking for input.

01-05-2003, 10:43 AM
I have avoided viewing this thread since my last post since I did not want to raise my already high blood pressure and ruin the remaining holiday period.

I have not read all of the above posts either but will wait to see what the real truth objectives scope, etc... are. I am sure these theratical fishery doctorates do not have any idea of the costs, environmental, and socio economical issues which a high risk comlex project like this starts. Would love to see their probability of success factor and time frames etc..

You can see where I am on this subject from my original post.

Having fished the great lakes fishery for the last 23 years which is a very healthy fishery to date which provides a great commercial and recreational sport fishery for US and canadians to put it at risk for a high cost and risk project does not appear prudent to me given all of our NA fisheries in trouble that could use the resources that would be expended on such a massive project such as this one.

Bob K will wait to see the TU proposal, I checked their web site and the last copy of the magazine but did not see any new projects that fit the profile of this one.

I am now going back to fly tying for the forumn shows and other fly swaps I am in where my blood pressure will be under control.


PM Out

01-09-2003, 05:15 AM

Read LR's post, just a couple yours.

Every couple of years some one brings this up. Funny thing is they can't get rid of the gobies, zebras, and a water flea. It will be pretty hard to rid the lakes of all salmonids and start fresh. Think of the lobby $$ behind SU, they would fight that tooth and nail.

01-09-2003, 06:33 AM
You neglected to mention lampreys and quagga mussels (a deep water relative of zebras, but NOT effected by the latest favored poison method). A poison shows promise for zebras, but needs further work to:
a. produce commercially and in quantity;
b. see what effects it has on other species;
c. make sure it (or a derivative) works effectively on ONLY zebras AND NOTHING ELSE!


01-09-2003, 07:53 AM
I also forgot to mention alewives, and the worst invader of all.....


01-09-2003, 08:32 AM
GLs colleagues

All of I have to say on this one is that I have worked on complex international corporate projects my whole career, (whether I liked or not) but taking on such a complex high risk project as this one
which has very questionable tangible and intangible benefits is one project I would run away from him if assigned to.

Note, I did not run to Canada during Vietnam but enlisted and served so that should tell you something about my character and willingness to take reasonable risks when needed.

PM Out

P.S. Can't wait to see this studys risk evaluation and tangible/intangible benefits to society.

01-09-2003, 09:50 AM
You mean mans benefits to society?

01-17-2003, 10:57 AM

Can we close this one out now based on your email last night ?

Don't want to have to keep coming back to this thread and raising my blood pressure further.

PM Out

01-17-2003, 01:24 PM
So the issue is... lost on most of us. We can't stop the lamprey from reproducing. Think they will have better luck with salmonids? Not hardly, wouldn't imagine the feds would get too much help from the locals.

Read up on humbolt co. in Cali. feds tried to clean it up. they were not to well liked or assisted.

It would be easier to land a perfecttly functioning Mars rover then rid us of all the salmonids.

01-17-2003, 01:52 PM
Right on you saw my previous discourses on this.

Lets move on to serious subjects.

Bob K will be posting his report soon, hes probably out steelie fishing now in NY. I can't wait until I am retired like him.

PM Out

01-17-2003, 02:52 PM
Close it out! I have no objections. Would do it myself, but don't know how to do it!


01-17-2003, 03:02 PM
Why close it out, some people may have something to add.


In the grand scheme of life you need to ask yourself what really matters. Two f's my brother Family and Fun. The rest is just a memory sometimes good sometimes bad.

01-17-2003, 09:10 PM
I have no objections to either leaving it on or taking it off. I attended one of NY state's meetings for input on their FCO (Fish Community Objectives) for Lake Ontario for the next 5 years. It was basically a "status" report on the health of the lake, and the current status of nutrients, algae, etc. through the food web, up to the major predators (salmonids and warm-water species). Our input was solicited, and questionnaires were distributed for our input. It gave everyone a chance for input, whether preservationist, charter captain, businessman, sportsman, etc. (I wish I had a copy of it, some interesting questions!)

Ontario is going through the same procedure. We will be sent (e-mail) the results of the surveys when complete; a 2-day meeting will held in late March to review the FINAL version of the FCO.

NO mention was made of the GLU proposal, and nothing was said at the presentations to make me even think it has even been seen. (I asked the DEC folks off line. They had not even heard of it) In fact, they laughed, in view of the effects of the current invasive species on the food web.

I sent Hal a copy of my "minutes"; if you are interested, and send me your e-mail address, I will be glad to send you a copy. (It's on a Wordperfect file - as long as you don't use a MAC, you're all set.)

(One interesting thing for consumption by Great Lakes Fishermen - the fisheries people LOVE chinook salmon for hatchery raising - they take only 1/4 the hatchery residence time [and therefore effort] prior to stocking than all the other salmonid species, including coho! To them, with limited taxpayer's bucks to spend and budget, it is a dream come true. That was interesting news to me, as I love steel - but I guess I can understand their dilemma.)


01-18-2003, 07:15 AM

Thanks for the update, I will forward your email to MJYP (Mark)

Liked the DEC folks reactions. Imagine if we stopped the trout and salmon stockings what the growth rate would be of the invasive species, gobies, alewifes, etc...

That reminds me, I have to work on my goby patterns I hear steelhead like them.:D

Keep us updated



PM Out

01-18-2003, 09:20 AM
Gobies... big and I mean big lakefront Smallies tear them up. Especially when they are nesting.

Bob I'll PM you my e-mail addy. Thanks.

It is funny tho that every couple of years some GL back to nature org. comes up with a plan that makes little to no sense to the people that bear the brunt of its effect.

I remember when some group in Ind. fought to stock lake trout in the turn around basin in Mi. CVity. Good idea for the shore fisherman and small boaters. those fish would come to with in 20' of shore in November guys would slam them(this was before a no kill on lakers). Once that group found out they erred on the side of the fisherman they changed their stance and let the US gov. plant them in deeper water.

01-18-2003, 10:31 AM

I caught a few of those lakers in the mid eighties off the west rock jetty in MC across from the pier. I think that is closed now due to the terrorist risks close to the nuclear plant. At least it looked like that when I drove down there this year. To bad I liked it out there better than the pier.

PM Out

01-18-2003, 10:33 AM
After thinking about it leave it up, so when other TU or other environmental groups surf into here they will know the risks and opposition they will be dealing with.:mad: :mad:


PM Out

P.S. Bob k see my email about your report attachment being rejected by my virus checker. See my note. Or just cut and paste the text into this thread.

01-18-2003, 05:11 PM

FYI Mich. City is not a nuke plant it is coal. The nuke one is in Bridgeman Mi.

These other Orgs. need to know how the ham and egg fisherman feels. Sometimes they lose sight of reality.

01-18-2003, 05:16 PM
Thats right, remember all the coal cars on the tracks on the way around the prison.

Like to show my boys that when I have them with me, so they know what one really looks like.

PM Out

01-18-2003, 05:59 PM
Thats wher MT stayed when he was jailed.

01-18-2003, 06:46 PM
Yep, I think I told them that when we drove past, and then they saw the inmates out there playing BB and baseball, and were amazed they were looking at convicts.

Then I made them climb Mr. Baldy in 90 degree heat to build their character further. :D

PM Out

01-18-2003, 09:30 PM
Those were the gaurds, the walls are too high to see the bad boys. Try baldy dressed in waders armed with rods and reels and headed towards black ditch.

it's a tough mother.

02-07-2003, 01:17 PM

Yesterday I received in the mail from Trout Unlimited - Walter J. Bock - Great Lakes United - Buffalo State College Cassety Hall, 1300 Elmwood Avenue Buffalo, NY 14222, 716-880142, fax, o303. a flyer with preprinted post post cards for me to send to me my federal representaives to vocalize support for the above named act.

Web sites listed are and

Bob K is this the same act this thread was started upon ?

Here is what the letter says:

The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (S 2964 in the Senate and H.R. 5396/HR 5395 in the House of Representatives would reauthorize and improve the National Invasive Species Act of 1996. Introduced at the end of 2002, the bill will improve federal authority and funding for prevention and control of aquatic invasive species.

NAISA addresses the following areas:

- Ballast water vector
- Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal barriers
- Live trade, other vectors, and newly developed invaders

Here is some more from the letter:

Biological invaders have wreaked havoc on the great lakes ecosystem and have caused economic hardship to the people of the region.

For example sea lampreys invaded the Great Lakes in the early 20th centru and decimated the fishery. Zebra mussels invaded the lakes in the 1980s, cost industrires milions annually to control, and are implicated in large scale disruptions in the food web. Asian Carp are poised to invade and become a dominant presence in the Lakes at the expense of native fish.

"The econonmic costs to the region of these and other invaders is in the billions of dollars annually" The environmental costs are inmeasurable.

Since the late 1800s, 162 non native species have become established in the Great Lakes region. Since the 1950s when the St Lawrence Seaway opened the Lakes to direct foreigh shipping ballast water has become a dominant way for new species to enter the system. Today most Great Lakes invaders originate from Eurasia and arrive in ship ballast. Invasive species have the potential to enter the lakes through other channels as well, including the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and the commerce of live food, bait, and aquarium fish.

The Great Lakes remain extremely vulnerable to new invasions, underscoring the cricitcal need to prevent the introductions of new organisms by protecting from the Lakes fromj the vectors of ballast water, the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and live trade. Once a species invades and takes hold, it is here to stay.

My read of the letter not the actual bill is they are proposing additional funding and preventive controls to stop and decrease the current Invasive species in the great lakes.

There is no mention of legal carve outs (exemptions) for such invasive fish as trout, steelhead, and salmon in this letter.

Time to get the actual legislation and read it. Will add it to my list of new federal and state laws to read this weekend.

Did any other Trout Unlimited members get this letter yet ? Maybe its on the TU web site but it was not last month I looked.

PM Out

02-07-2003, 01:28 PM
Got the same thing 2 weeks ago. They probably send it out to all members. At least that is my best guess.

02-07-2003, 01:43 PM
I don't know if this includes the area I was speaking of. That's the problem with these things ("mailers") is you can't see the underlying legislation.

I do know that there is legislation pending (has been for the last couple of years) in congress "to prohibit ballast discharge in the great lakes".

The problem with these laws is you have to read it to understand what "riders" have been added.

Sorry - I don't know what is included. I DO know that dumping of ballast SHOULD have been outlawed decades ago, and I am in favor of it.

Since I am not an attorney, I don't feel qualified to remark on legal matters. (I know Hal will agree with me on this!)

But if I read the actual legislation, however, I would comment on my interpretation of "what it says".


02-07-2003, 02:31 PM
I can look up the actual legislation and will.

Until you actually read the law and all terms and conditions all bets are off as to what is included and excluded, and even after the law is passed until it is challenged and opined in by the federal or states court you still may not know what the actual intent is. I deal with this every day in my real job.

PM Out

02-07-2003, 06:20 PM
Since sending it in is in question, and more than likely your senator will never see it.

Save yourself the trip to the PO and put it in the circular file.

Doesn't it make you wonder how TU is asking for $$$ all the while yet, theyspend a ton of money on junk mailings. Perhaps if they saved the $$$ on them they would ask for less $$.

It's almost like the US government and their $300 hammers.

02-11-2003, 03:52 PM
Just to make sure this is all cleared up I wanted to share my most recent corresondance with TU. Here it is.
John - Got some info from our Midwest Office. Briana Meier was a former TU intern working on special projects for the Midwest Office. One of her projects was to gather input from local TU councils and other fishery organizations about a newly proposed Great Lakes United native fish policy. After compiling the information, she sent it back to GLU. Briana is gone, but GLU has come up with a revised draft policy which I've attached along with a letter from our Upper Midwest Conservation Director about the issue. Our Midwest Office notes that the latest attachment remains a draft GLU policy only. It is not a draft TU policy, nor is it being considered for adoption by TU.* You can distribute to whomever is interested. The Midwest Ofiice will do any follow-up if necessary.* Thanks for your interest and concern.
Here's the response and attachment:

Dear Sir,
Thanks for contacting me about the Great Lakes United Action Agenda. I have been helping GLU develop the Native Fish Restoration portion of the Habitat & Biodiversity section of the Action Agenda. The recommendations that have been developed do not necessarily reflect the positions and views of Trout Unlimited. Our role in this has been to solicit input from groups across the Great Lakes basin and develop a set of recommendations based on that collective input. A set of the draft recommendation are attached.
The recommendations are currently in draft form and are open for comments and input. The recommendations regarding stocking of non-native trout and salmon are definitely the most contentious so far. GLU and a few other groups take a relatively hard-line view in favor of phasing out stocking of non-native fish. Trout Unlimited's view is more moderate. We would oppose any stocking of non-native trout or salmon where it either would interfere with native trout rehabilitation efforts, where natural reproduction of non-native trout and salmon already provide a sustainable population, or if stocking were being done in place of improving habitat or water quality. We recognize that the pacific salmon, steelhead, and brown trout are now part of the Great Lakes ecosystem and it would be a mistake to try and remove them. But stocking should also be done judiciously and with habitat restoration and native species rehabilitation in mind. Frankly, I think the ideal would be where stocking were unnecessary because the Great Lakes were able to support self-sustaining trout and salmon fisheries.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions.
Laura Hewitt
Upper Midwest Conservation Director
Laura Hewitt
Trout Unlimited
222 S. Hamilton St., Ste. 3
Madison, WI* 53703
Phone: (608)250-3534
Fax: (608)287-1179

02-11-2003, 05:15 PM
I bet 95% that will not be passed, actually I will bet all my fishing equipment on that....the "new" fishery is developing, those purists cannot take it away.

Don't worry too much, it is a huge step to what we already have created to end this....not likley it will happen! :D

All cleared up in my opinon!

02-11-2003, 06:14 PM
It's called the "Chicken Little Syndrome".

Little thing was so worried about everything that he wasn't paying attention while they plucked and deep fried him.

02-11-2003, 09:19 PM
As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for, you JUST MIGHT GET IT!

I have done a cursory review of the 133-page senate bill for "protecting" us from ballast water discharge. Don't get me wrong, this is BADLY needed, and I personally thought we had this protection by now.

The bill defines: "INTRODUCTION.- The term 'introduction' means the transfer of an organism to an ecosystem outside the historic range of the species of which the organism is a member."

Hmmmm. - Let's see. Browns came from Western Europe, steelies and chinooks/cohos from the Pacific northwest, and they aren't native to the lakes - - - I wonder if they are legal???? (Not by THIS definition!)

I also have some "hangups" with their defined flow-through methodology for cleaning of ballast to 95% - if we only put 5% of the zebra mussels in the lakes, would we still have problems??? YOU BETCHA! (But this is technical, based on my technical experiences.)

I have hangups with the sampling methods for verification, as well - based upon my education and tech. background, the techniques called out are EARLY PRIMITIVE!

And the mailings from TU (according to Hal) support this bill. Guys, I hope I am wrong on this. But what I see doesn't look good. Not trying to be nasty, but who are the good guys anymore????

Looking for guidance and words of wisdom, I am disillusioned.


03-10-2003, 10:55 AM
Any body hear what happened at the federal level on this ?

Wasn't it suppose to be voted on in house and senate committees in February, per the TU letter I received ?

I will look it up when I get a chance through our legal search systems.

Will be off line most of this week from FFF, work is hot right now, as we said in the USAF, "we are in a world of hurt", when we were deployed on a special mission or alert.

PM Out

03-11-2003, 10:17 AM
Hal, haven't heard a word yet on either HR5396/5395 or S2964.
All you get in responses is, "At least we are doing something..."
That's all we need - more ineffectual laws, and a waste of taxpayer's money on a bureaucracy and methods that won't do a thing for us.

All politicians are a waste of time. Regardless of party. A pox on them all! Don't trust any of 'em.

Very disappointing.:mad:


03-11-2003, 10:59 AM
Nice thing about laws both old and new is that the enforcement never really takes hold.

We need less laws and more enforcement of the current ones.

Of course if that were to happen the politicos, lawyers, etc would not be able to justify their jobs.

03-16-2003, 06:33 PM


03-16-2003, 10:31 PM
More laws will fix everything.... enforce our current ones.

Of course that would idle 50% of the would be politicians and lawyers in this world.

04-16-2003, 09:44 AM

I read the TU Spring magazine cover to cover last night, not a word in it on this legislation that I could see.

I did have my reading glasses on, so I doubt if I missed it.

PM Out

04-16-2003, 09:49 AM
It's the chicken little theory, legislation is harder to pass then everyone thinks.

Unless you actually see the sky fall don't worry about it; because some one said it was.