Editor’s note: This commentary is by Zack Cockrum, of Berlin, a lifelong fisherman who is on the board of the Mad Dog Trout Unlimited chapter (though these views are his own).
[T]he story is as common as any fish tale: The fishing here just isn’t want it used to be. But a recent proposal to close one of the state’s most important fish hatcheries to eliminate a funding gap for Vermont Fish and Wildlife would undoubtedly make Vermont’s trout fishing a shade of what it is today. Anglers should be willing to do our part to support a small license fee increase to offset this gap.
I am an avid fly-fisherman, often (unfairly) accused of being more concerned with catching and releasing tiny brook trout than bringing home a stringer full of stocked rainbow trout. Whatever one’s preferred method of fishing, we share a common challenge: the number of anglers has been declining for decades. Reversing that trend depends above all else on maintaining opportunities for new people to get out and fish. Closing the Salisbury fish hatchery would undoubtedly make it harder for new anglers to have positive fishing experiences.
That’s because the fish hatchery holds what are known as the “broodstock” for the state. These fish produce the eggs for other hatcheries that raise them into catchable fish. Closing the hatchery this year would immediately save money, but the impacts would be felt years down the line. Fish and Wildlife’s own budget impact document claims that the existing fish could not be moved due to disease, so new broodstock would have to be raised to maturity. Starting in 2022 there could be no catchable sized brook trout stocked for two seasons, no browns and rainbows for three seasons, no steelhead for four seasons, and no lake trout for five seasons. The other alternative would be to pay for out-of-state eggs that are expensive and could create other genetic problems. By reducing the number of hatcheries, overall stocking could decrease 20-25 percent.
In addition, groups such as Trout Unlimited, which runs an in-school science demonstration project called Trout in the Classroom, depend on this hatchery for their eggs. Volunteers work with local schools to bring in trout eggs, and students work to maintain the conditions that lead to the growth of trout until they are released in the wild. Volunteers in this program already crisscross the state to deliver eggs and equipment, and closing the most convenient egg supplier would make their jobs even harder.
There are plenty of anglers that are critical of the state’s trout stocking program. They argue improving stream habitat and enacting more stringent creel limits could create or recover wild trout populations, offset the need for stocking and create more authentic fishing experiences. While I strongly share these goals, we must also recognize that many anglers understandably enjoy bringing home dinner and easy access to fishing in the streams and lakes the state stocks.
Furthermore, one of the arguments for closing the Salisbury hatchery is that it will require substantial investments to meet improved water quality standards. If the millions of dollars required for these upgrades cannot be found, the department should develop a plan for slowly transitioning broodstock to other facilities. Along the way, department staff could work with anglers to identify places where habitat improvement and special regulations could grow wild trout populations, offsetting some of the loss in stocking capacity.
Funding our obligation to clean up Lake Champlain is also a much needed part of this solution. Improving water quality will benefit people and wild trout alike. Reducing polluted runoff by stabilizing stream banks can create fish habitat, and the funding could be part of the solution to Salisbury’s water quality concerns.
State and federal angler surveys estimate the economic benefit of stocked fish to be more than $31 million. Not only do we contribute to the local economy, but fishing license sales also go back to funding fisheries. It’s been four years since we’ve seen a fishing license increase, and at $26 a year, it’s a steal compared to many other states. An increase as little as $2 for a fishing license and $5 for a combined hunting and fishing license would generate close to enough revenue to keep Salisbury open. Until those rates took effect, we would also need a contribution from the general fund, but if anglers are willing to impose an increase on ourselves, we hope the Legislature will chip-in, too.
A temporary moratorium on catchable trout stocking for two to three seasons could lead to a death spiral where fewer catchable fish means fewer license sales, and less funding. To me, it’s worth every penny of $2 a year to avoid that fate, and whether you’re a dry-fly fishing purist or someone who loves watching their kids dunk worms to catch tonight’s dinner, I hope you’ll support keeping the Salisbury hatchery open.
