Should North Cascades National Park be forced to stock non-native fish in high-country lakes that normally would be barren? Apparently the U.S. House of Representatives thinks so. Do you?
This is one of those tough questions that arises from time to time across the National Park System: Should science or political pressure be the guiding hand of national park management? Of course, in this issue there's the additional wild card of tradition. For generations folks have been lugging trout up into the park's high country to stock the lakes, which under normal conditions couldn't sustain a wild fishery because there are not enough nutrients.
The stocking expeditions began late in the 19th century and have been handed down, father to son, father to son (and daughter no doubt), although in recent years the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has handled the chore.
Now, park managers believe continued stocking with non-native fish species is contrary to their mission to manage the park and its waters unimpaired for the next generation. Bringing the stockings to a halt would not be precedent setting. Indeed, the fact that North Cascades still allows the practice is something of a precedent, as other parks that once stocked fish and actually ran hatcheries -- places like Yellowstone and Yosemite -- long ago did away with those operations. Today North Cascades National Park stands, to the best of Superintendent Chip Jenkins' knowledge, as the last national park with a stocking operation involving non-native fish.
Which brings us to the park's decision to halt the practice. Under a Record of Decision approved in December, park managers on July 1 plan to ban fish stocking in as many as 42 high-country lakes unless Congress intervenes.
Congress is on the verge of intervening. On Tuesday the House passed legislation introduced by Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Washington, to direct the Park Service to allow the stockings to continue. A final say awaits the measure in the Senate.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Stocking lakes is a goofy-assed practice anyway, except for restoration of native species. Most lake stocking is simply to put game fish in there so people have something to do with their spare time. I've seen more inanities in fish stocking than I care to.
Stocking alpine lakes is doubly stupid.
===========================================
My travels through the National Park System: americaincontext.com
Well North Cascades is actually 3 units in one (and the NP is 2 units divided, so 4 actually). Does stocking in national recreation areas have more of a precedent?
I did a report on this practice in college. It is detrimental to amphibians, mostly salamanders at North Cascades. It is not in compliance with the organic act, and other states such as California has stopped stocking naturally fishless lakes thoughout the state. The Washington Department of Fish and Game have a sad history of screwing up their lakes, just look at Lake Chelan, where they caused the destruction of the whole aquatic ecosystem by stocking mysis shrimp there. Lake Chelan abuts North Cascades NP.
well this is interesting, i might actually agree with some liberals. i don't see a problem with the ones that have been stocked for a long time, but don't see a reason to stock ones that haven't been. i have lived in this area and there are plenty of places to fish. no need to create more. the beauty of the place should be enough or go somewhere else! there are many choices to suit anybody. getting the congress involved cannot be good,have you been to your dmv lately? or called any government agency? the record speaks for it self. no more changes, leave it as is.
What part of "non-native" do some people not understand ? If Mother Nature didn't put it there, man shouldn't. Can't we humans learn from our past mistakes ?
I always heard that one main thing that made man superior to all other mammals (and I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement, by the way) was his ability to take facts and reason with them. Look at all our past mistakes with non-native plants, animals, fish and reptiles. Learn from these mistakes !
It helps to understand the details of this bill. Of the hundreds of lakes in the park and ninety-some with a history of stocking only 42 would have a continued stocking program. No new lakes would be stocked. This came about as a result of a 12-year study of the effects of stocked fish and a we subsaquent EIS. They found that trout stocked in low densities that cannot reproduce has no measurable effect on native biota including salamanders.
Where harm occurs is in lakes with excessive populations of fish. Typically this happens when trout over-reproduce but excessive stocking can have the same effect. In NCNP they will eliminate reproducing populations and would stock only non-reproducing fish in low numbers.
This isn't being forced on the park. The preferred alternative of the EIS allowed fish stocking but asked for clarification from Congress to continue the practice as was promised during the formation of the park.
The fish have been and are stocked by the Washington Trail Blazers.
The website has a document from 2004 with some history:
North Cascades National Park High Lakes Fishery Management (.pdf file)
(more interesting information from the website)
The NCNP Mountain Lakes Fishery Management Plan, including the full Environmental Impact Statement and ecological research papers, are available at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/documentsList.cfm?parkId=327&projectId=10007
It is evident that only one person above, Brian Curtis, has ever read the EIS, and that includes the author of the article above. Should National Park planning decisions to be based on the best available science, or on uninformed emotion? That's an editorial question for NPT.