[Dave Weyrick]

Interested in helping decide the fish stocking issue in the NCNP? Meetings are this week. Check it out at http://www.watrailblazers.org/forum/viewthread.php?tid=53 Want some info about the issue? See www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/high_lakes

[Highker]

I just don't get stocking fish at lakes. Just because it's a traditional activity, grandfathered in, doesn't mean it makes sense. If a lake is meant to have fish, they would be native. The legacy of mining from 100 years ago doesn't mean we should let lots of arsenic go into our streams. The tradition of cutting fir boughs for a soft bed doesn't mean we should do it now. Why is fishing different? Why not let the wilderness revert back to its aboriginal state? Why add something to nature -- isn't that why we preserve wilderness, so we can visit "unspoiled" terrain?

[Dave Weyrick]

Good points Highker. I submit that when done in a proper manner, high lake fish stocking can yield large recreational benefit for little economic outlay with minor negative environmental impact; just like trails- so why not?

[MCaver]

I don't have a problem with lakes being stocked, I've just always thought it was strange they sometimes use non-native fish. That seems equivalent to replanting a logged out area with some non-native tree species like oaks. Just doesn't seem right.

[Tom]

A better allegory would be to planting trees where none used to exist, and from the latest studies, we all know how bad trees are. Now if they could only introduce a species of fish that would wipe out the surrounding bug population I don't think you'd have any argument.

[Highker]

I can't compare trails to stocking. But I can compare stocking fish to placing a stash of candy bars on every peak, so the peak baggers can find something when they get there (instead of what was there originally).

[MCaver]

Sounds like geocaching.

[car hugger]

I'm kind of a minimalist when it comes to tampering with the wilderness--keep the trails primitive (no stairs ). I'm not a fisherman, but don't have a problem with fish planting.

[polarbear]

He who runs in front of car gets tired. He who runs behind car gets exhausted. Maybe the same applies to trees. We have two mountain ranges that are obvious polluters, the Smokies and the Blues. And the Catskills? What next, dogs? It's out of control. I will never hike in those fiendish ranges Keep them away. I think it would be a shame if fish stocking were disallowed in NCNP. Fishing brings people of all ages together. It brings people to the outdoors and makes them better appreciate the wilderness. This is priceless. Stocking the lakes is a real public service.

[Mike Collins]

Polarbear...In addition to eating whatever bugs might fall into the water fish are strongly suspected of depleting the population of amphibians, principally by means of eating frog eggs, tadpoles, and adults. Salamanders have some protection because the eggs have a poison within them. Stocking is altering whatever balance might be expected within nature. There IS an environmental cost to artificially planting fish in lakes in which they would not otherwise appear. A google search with the words "frogs stocking fish" will reveal replete references to this growing problem. I encourage readers to visit and read the dozens of articles which have been written on this subject. I think it would be a shame if stocking fish WERE allowed in NCNP. The depredation of native frog species is not a "minor negative environmental impact" as Dave Weyrick states in the above post.

[Brian Curtis]

Mike, the results you are seeing on "frogs and stocking fish" is the result of research in the Sierras by Roland Knapp and Sue Matthews. Irresponsible fish stocking by California Fish and Game is impacting the mountain yellow-legged frog, an endangered species. The research in California cannot be applied to fish stocking here in Washington. Our frogs don't have the same life history as the MYL frog which depends on deep lakes where the frog spends several years as a tadpole before maturing into a frog. There are no frogs in the Cascades that are, in any way, threatened by fish stocking. For information on fish stocking here in Washington check out the science section at the Trail Blazers' web site www.watrailblazers.org. There you will find links to research done by the North Cascades National Park and a paper by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife that directly address the issue. They found one amphibian, the long-toed salamander, that can, potentially, be harmed by fish stocking in a high lake. Prime LT salamander habitat are rich, shallow, lakes. Research has shown that lakes that are overpopulated with naturally reproducing trout can reduce LT salamander populations, but they could find no difference between the fauna of fishless lakes and lakes with low densities of introduced trout. Unlike some other states such as California, the WDFW has been planting low densities of trout that are known to not reproduce, and they have been exploring ways to eliminate over-reproducing fish that can impact the fauna of the lake. These findings have been corraborated by a study in Idaho where amphibian populations were reduced in lakes with too many fish, but they could find no impact on amphibian populations when they did controlled experiments on formerly fishless lakes with low densities of fish stocked. Responsibly managed lakes offer an incredible recreational opportunity while still maintaining the complete range flora and fauna of high lakes.

[REJ]

I would like to understand the magnitude of the "problem." How many lakes are there in the North Cascades Park Complex? According to the NPS website there are at least 240. What is the definition of a lake? How many lakes in the NCPC have been stocked historically? How many lakes in the NCPC are currently being stocked?

[hikerjo]

Is there a "master list" of all the lakes which have been stocked?

[Highker]

The bottom line: stocking alters the wilderness. We are saving the wilderness in its pristine state (as much as possible). So it seems "wrong" to stock fish where they have never been. It's an idealistic goal but leaving well enough alone seems like the best long-term policy. There may be future studies that show a decrement that we can't predict.

[Tom]

Seems like the bottom line is people alter wilderness. Why stop at fish?