[salish]

Somehow this thread escaped me early on, or else I would have responded sooner. Just want to go on record to say that I am a proponent of continued stocking in the NCNP. Several others, including Oldtimer and Brian Curtis, have made their statements with much more clarity and logic than I ever could, so I'll not go into details. I'll just say that I think there is room for continued stocking. Thanks, Cliff

[Dslayer]

Yeah, and fish taste better than salamanders.

[crazyjake]

Went to the meeting in Sedro Woolley. Very informative in all areas. Was surprised to learn that stocking has helped the wildlife. Information presented states that there is now a pair of mating loons at one of the lakes. I don't believe this has been mentioned in any of the posts. Kind of an unexpected benefit.

[MtnGoat]

cracks me up how selective the wildnerness purist are. To be consistent, they should be supporting banning themselves from nearly all alpine terrain in the n Cascades, since humans are neither indigenous to these locations nor cause no impact. But no, what gets their purist dander up is uses they don't like, and damage they aren't causing, while ignoring uses they do like, and damage they do cause. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of alpine microflora such as lichens, and other such plants being damaged by climbers. If we're going to play high and mighty defenders of all things pure and natural, it's time to be consistent. I for one pledge that if these folks succeed in eliminating one of the favorite pastimes in my life, I shall work tirelessly to make sure the favor is extended to climbers and hikers. The game of selective outrage is getting real old, and these folks are so concerned about unnatural damage, I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure you're held to the same standard.

[MCaver]

Nice strawman tactics. How about actually discussing the issue at hand instead of labeling people and calling names. It's been a good discussion from both sides so far, and is a topic worthy of discussion.

[Highker]

Hey Mtngoat, I see your point, but there is a difference between adding something permanent to the wilderness, and people visiting that wilderness. That's my point in a nutshell. Fishing enthusiasts are not going to agree of course -- they are too enmeshed in their hobby/passion to understand. But the purpose of setting aside certain lands that are saved in as pristine a state as possible is a valid thing. Saved for future generations of people, for future generations of flora/fauna, and to let it evolve naturally. Agree that damage to delicate plants and rock by climbers is also a problem. I've seen this happen in many places. Adding bolts and leaving rap slings is in a similar category as planting fish. That should be done in locations not designated as wilderness. There are plenty of places where we can all play. It's just that we don't have to do it everyplace. We don't need motorcycles everywhere; we don't need fishing everywhere; we don't need bolts everywhere. We don't need wilderness everywhere either.

[#19]

[Brian Curtis]

Highker, Properly managed fish are not permanent. Because they do not reproduce they can be removed by simply doing nothing. The only way to have wilderness that evolves completely naturally without human influence would be to keep people completely out. That seems pointless to me. Recreation is a well established and accepted practice in wilderness. To support recreation there are many activities that go against the idea of "pure" wilderness. The most obvious one is trails. They are nearly permenent wilderness scars that fly in the face of the Wilderness Act. But weighing the advantages of trails against the disadvantages I think that trails are a benefit. I feel the same way about fish planting. It isn't that I'm blind to the point you are trying to make. Just the opposite, I've not only thought it through, I've spent countless hours reading all the research I could get my hands on about the effects of fish stocking in wilderness, and if I felt that fish were harming the flora and fauna of the wilderness I wouldn't support fish planting. Another problem with eliminating fish stocking is that people will take it upon themselves to start planting barren lakes. People who don't know which species or how many should be going in those lakes are likely to cause trouble. They have problems with bootleg planting in both the Olympic and Rainier National Parks. It is far better to have a carefully regulated and controlled program.

[Highker]

Brian, I'll have to agree and disagree on several points. Agree that stocking sterile fish is not permanent, but restocking effectively makes it permanent. Disagree that we really know the long-term effects on flora/fauna. Time will tell. Agree that trails can be a scar, actually ruining many views. What is done is done and there is little that can be done about that (except closing a section and hoping it will return to aboriginal state). Senstive trail location practices would have minimized this problem. And with this statement I'm not being much of a purist. Agree that renegade stocking is worse than controlled stocking. I'm not sure this is an argument for stocking in some areas like NCNP. Thrilled that activists like you are studying both sides of the issue, educating the fishing enthusiasts, and attempting to control something that's going to happen no matter what. In a way, banning fishing in the wilderness will work about as well as Prohibition. We have to learn to live with it. But we have to educate people as much as possible about the "Wilderness Ethic". Leave no trace education has had a tremendous benefit. Ditto for sensitive fishing. I must admit I don't understand why someone would consider yanking fish out of their environment by their mouths is considered sport. Others don't understand why I enjoy hiking and camping. To each his own, but let's try to save as much as possible. We are extremely lucky to have this wonderful resource. Most areas of the world are not so fortunate due to a longer history of intensive human presence.

[MtnGoat]

"Nice strawman tactics. How about actually discussing the issue at hand instead of labeling people and calling names. It's been a good discussion from both sides so far, and is a topic worthy of discussion." The issue at hand is that some folks are upset about lake stocking because it degrades the environment, and they find the degredation they cause acceptable and someone elses unacceptable, while stating they are concerned about keeping the mountains in a natural state. In reality, their "natural" state unavoidably means no people, or at most a few a year in a very few places such as passes natives frequented. I find it pretty one sided to be so selective about goring someone elses mtn ox, because you don't like their impacts while accepting your own, and I will not shrink from calling people on this. There is no strawman here, there are folks finding fish planting unacceptable due to it's unnaturalness, while defending their own unnatural presence and impacts. "Strawman" is setting up a false position to attack. I'm sorry but that's not the case here. Folks are provably against fish planting while saying their impacts are acceptable losses and that their unnatural incursion should be permitted, which is precisely what I am pointing out. I'd say *your* argument that this is a strawman, is the strawman!

[MtnGoat]

"There are plenty of places where we can all play." No, there are not. Many folks now against fish planting are also intent on adding wilderness designation to as many square miles of woods as they can. There are very few alpine lakes outside wilderness left. There are not plenty of places, there are extremely few if wilderness is placed off limits, *especially* when more and more is incorporated into it. So like many other users, we see previously accessible areas added to wilderness and then our uses banned while we're told we can go elsewhere, while the propents seemingly ignoring that everywhere elsewhere is *also* on their list, just later. Additionally, the more limited the places to fish, the worse the experience. High lakes are different from any other fishing environment specifically because of what and where they are. As an example, I'd point out that the burke gilman trail and discovery park and many other parks around seattle provide many miles of hiking, and if one is only interested in hiking, and not it's setting or other factors, that should be sufficient, right? After all, you're hiking! But this ignores all that's valuable about hiking in the mtns, doesn't it? High lake fishing is exactly the same way.

[MtnGoat]

"together to address fish stocking policy in the NCNP and adjoining recreational areas and you are threatening retribution for "eliminating" your hobby. Kind if a gun lobby arguement." As for retribution, I'd consider it consistency. The idea that impacts are unacceptable should be applied to *everyones* uses, if it is applied to anyones.

[MCaver]

[Lead Dog]

I have fished in both stocked lakes and unstocked lakes and I have found more stunted fish in unstocked lakes. These lakes rarely get fished so the fish overpopulate. With all the budget cuts in government the fish stocking program might be cut anyway, so all the people complaining will get their wish. I know that the Osprey family that I saw at a remote high lake in the Alpine Lakes won"t complain about the fish stocking program,as well as the 4 babys in the nest. The fishing must have been good.

[Highker]

Putting in fish for ospreys is definitely fooling w/Mother Nature. We can do that in civilization instead of wilderness.