The House of Representatives believes non-native fish should be stocked in high-country lakes, such as Green Lake, in North Cascades National Park. NPS photo.
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.
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
I can see this from both view points. While the NPS is spending millions trying to get rid of non-natives, this park is going to add them. But since there do'nt seem to be any native fish for them to impact and the low nutrients will stop them from becoming invasive, then maybe we should preserve the tradition of stocking. It's like in other parks where we tell the visitors that everything is protected, but we let them pick fruit because it's a traditinoal activity. I think this is a tough one.
Glacier NP stopped this nonsense in 1971. Almost 40 years later the principles of conservation should have reached even northern Washington. Stocking with non-native fish is incompatible with the Organic Act and must be banned immediately.
I do not think they should stock the lakes in any national parks. There should be areas that are free from human intrusion, and national parks are the perfect natural habitats to keep free from all destructive interferance by civilization.
I'm always amazed at our elected goof balls. Here we are in a economic free fall and thousands more are about to loose their job and these goof balls want to put fish in a lake that normally doesn't have fish. Why? I'm sure someone will make money on this deal. I see fishing lodges and camps going up and now you will find this to be the rest of the story. Maybe Our New President will have a grasp on the real needs of our nation and can this idea.
Let's take this money and doing something good with it. Bail someone else out!!!!
Thank and enjoyed your web site.
The stocking of non-native fish to high alpine lakes and other lentic habitats has been shown to be detrimental to native amphibian populations (e.g. the declining Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged frog in locales such as Yosemite and Seqouia/Kings Canyon NP's). As an amphibian biologist, I sincerely hope the process of stocking the lakes of these parks is put to an end.
You know, it seems like every time we try and do something like this to the ecosystem, the ecosystem ends up rebelling. While stocking lakes with trout for sport fishing sounds fun, I think the balance of the ecosystem gets tilted in some very subtle ways, much like Dave mentioned. If the frogs go, then that upsets the ecosystem. of course, the question gets begged because this is a practice that has been done for years, and therefore that IS the ecosystem. Still, I say sport-fish elsewhere, leave the lakes alone.
The lakes have already been stocked - if there was going to be any damage it was done a long time ago. Protect the bodies of water that have never been stocked from being stocked. An EIS would probably be required under NEPA prior to stocking a park lake that has never been stocked.
The Organic Act doesn’t really address fish stocking but it does clearly permit the issuing of leases, selling of lumber, and the destruction of detrimental animals and plants. I suppose if the fish in those otherwise barren lakes were deemed detrimental to the ecosystem after 90 years of stocking, the Park Service could hire summer interns to spray Rotenone in those lakes to kill those pesky trout and return the lakes to a lifeless state.
No I don't think they should.
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.
Rod, science, not emotion, should be the driver, and it's the science that this story was based upon. The story revolves around the question of whether politics should guide management decisions in the national parks, and that's exactly what is going on with fish stocking in North Cascades NP.
One of the EIS-related documents you cite points out that environmentally preferred alternative calls for fish stocking to be discontinued and also notes that "NPS cannot authorize an activity, in this instance stocking of fish into naturally fishless mountain lake ecosystems, that would derogate the values and purposes for which North Cascades was established, except as may have been or shall be directly and specifically provided by Congress (original emphasis).
Furthermore, according to those EIS documents:
So the science, not emotion, certainly seems to show the best environmental scenario for the 42 lakes would be to do away with the fish stocking. Additionally, North Cascades Superintendent Chip Jenkins pointed out to the Traveler earlier this year that the stocking of non-native fish is against the Park Service's Management Policies:
"Our Park Service Management Policies specifically say that we will not stock non-native species, we will not do anything that is in derogation of the values or the resources of the park unless specifically authorized by Congress," said North Cascades Superintendent Jenkins, who also believes the stocking runs contrary to the National Park Service Organic Act and the Redwoods Act of 1978. "So if this is something that Congress wants us to do, then we need that authority to implement. If we don’t get that authority by July 1, and that’s where I think tension is rising, then we will move to stop the practice."
Delve deeper into the EIS documents and you'll find the following:
Keep reading the documents and it's not difficult to figure out that those "verbal commitments" stemmed from arm twisting on behalf of Washington state officials. Again, here's a snippet from the collection of EIS documents that holds up that point:
Finally, the documentation shows that there are an estimated 1,000 people a year who head to North Cascades's 65 "fishable lakes, or roughly 15 per lake per year. So on top of the science that goes against fish stocking, you have the economics. Is this a cost-effective program?
1) The NCNP Fisheries Management Plan is based on 12 years of ecological studies. Kurt claims "science, not emotion, should be the driver" while utterly ignoring 200 pages of science in the EIS which do not support his position.
2) The National Park Service has designated Alternative B as their Preferred Alternative. Kurt's statement "park managers believe continued stocking is contrary to their mission" is patently false.
3) Under this preferred alternative, of the 91 lakes, 29 are currently fishless and would remain so, 20 would no longer be stocked and would become fishless, and 42 would continue to be stocked with trout, as they have been for almost a century. Only non-reproducing species will be stocked.
4) This alternative would have no adverse effects on federally or state listed species, or species of special interest, including salamanders, frogs or insects. If further studies find any adverse impact in a lake, stocking would stop.
5) The only reason there is a "no stocking" alternative is that Congress has not given the National Park Service clear authority to either continue or discontinue stocking, so the NPS is explicitly requesting that Congress clarify its authority.
6) Kurt asks "Should science or political pressure be the guiding hand of national park management?" while ignoring the science and advocating uninformed political intervention against the Park Service's preferred alternative. The only one word for this: hypocrisy.
7) Finally, Kurt makes the amazing claim that stocking is "not cost effective" based on Park visitation. Stocking costs the Park nothing; it costs the state only $18,000 per year, paid entirely by permits. Instead, he is advocating a new $3 million unfunded Park program to eliminate these fish. Incredible!
Why does Kurt's article mention none of these facts? Why does it not point readers to the EIS, where they can learn more? His article would have done so if its purpose was to inform and serve NPT readers, rather than to advocate his predetermined opinion.
It is important to realize that our National Park system encompasses an enormous variety of ecological and historical resources, and that "one regulation does not fit all". With NCNP, each of the 91 lakes studied is unique, and the single management prescription Kurt advocates does not fit all. More broadly, it is important for NPT to realize that Park visitors seek a wide variety of experiences, and angling is one such experience valued by many. It is not in conflict with wilderness values; for many hikers and fishermen, it is integral to them. Finally, this Park was created with pre-existing commitments to facilitate continued traditional uses of both Native Americans and Americans, and stocking is one of these. Let NPT be inclusive of all who love our Parks, not exclusive.
- Rod Farlee, member of the Board of Directors, Friends of Olympic NP
Rod, I think the EIS, and the sections I pointed to, speak for itself.
As to the Park Service's position, reread Supt. Chip Jenkins' comments and read the NPS's 2006 Management Policies.
Kurt, you're mixing up the time line on commitments made by NPS officials. The promises in question were made by officials prior to formation of the park in 1969. Park Service officials were specifically asked if fish stocking would continue during the hearings leading up to formation of the park. The conflict between the state of Washington and the NCNP came about in the eighties when the park tried to renege on those promises and stop all stocking.
Unlike the two other National Parks in WA you are required to carry a Washington State fishing license in NCNP.
The preferred alternative in the EIS is Alternative B: continue fish stocking in 42 lakes. When the science determined that low density, non-reproducing fish do not harm native biota that had to become the preferred alternative. But it put the Park Service in a bind because the science determined that a course contrary to national policy was scientifically acceptable. So they called Alternative D (no more fish stocking) the "environmentally preferred alternative." Not because that was what the science said, but because it fit a strictly purist point of view and NPS national policy. And that's all I see in Skip Jenkins' comments.