Stocking the Kern

[castaway]

We do all share the same goal... just a different approach to getting there.


obviously we all have a pipe dream about what should be (as viewed through our own world views) -

of cource catch and relase all native wild trout in untouched unmolested locations would be my dream... I live it as often as I can.... but for locations like the little piece of the kern that is stocked, the owens, etc... its just not in the cards... too many people on this rock we call home.

and I would rather have hank enjoy himself with his family on the 20 mile section then go looking for my secret little piece of heaven..

stockers protect wild trout... and Im sticking to it.

30 years of stocking on the Kern,... and it still has a HUGE number of wild fish... prof. is in the pudding.

[rayfound]

I can't get on the kern board. I was banned ages ago, and Guy Jeans was a rude * to me when I emailed him.

The high mountain lakes is a bit of a different animal - the stocking creates a fishery where one didn't exist before. Creates a recreational opportunity.

There has to be SOME value placed on human use/enjoyment of a species. The value of a frog vs a fishery is different, and I dislike the idea that the two native populations are held identically valuable.

I also recognize that it is a little hypocritical of me to be against stocking streams that have trout, but be in favor of stocking lakes that cannot support trout naturally.

I will go as far as suggest that the DFG efforts in the backcountry should be focused on creating self-sustaining fisheries, and allow lakes that cannot self-sustain to go fishless and allow frogs to return. Just start from where we are today: The Brook trout is the sticking point, given its ability to spawn essentially anywhere - I say leave them where they are, but don't invite them anywhere new.

Ultimately, this is partially about budget, partially about personal preference for wild fish, and partially about conservation. I want to see the State make the most of what the fisheries budget allows - right now I do not think that is happening at all.

[castaway]

I mean we could really take this to the next level.... who made us god to give ourselves the authority to decide what lives and what dies? that animals value is based on what we want to do with it? Eat it, fish for it, hunt it, play with it, pet it, wear it, look at it, etc... if it doest satisfy one of those desires... we * on it.

I think if we took this all the way... and stayed true to convictions... we would have to retire from flyfishing... but thats not going to happen... we are all hypocrites in some way... its human nature.


Yea... the DFG could improve... but the KRR project should be a great example of how to manage people and fish.. "cuz I think fish and people can coexist peacefully" G.W.Bush.

[Benny]

You really want to quote this guy?

One guy behind and the other on his knees

[castaway]

hahahahaha!!!!

Great picture!

[castaway]

Craig... ok.. your right..

I guess I should say that planters on the kern protect wild fish...

let me explain. (also... you need to read my justification for thinking that... I already posted it)

stockers have been on the kern for 30 years... and still we have a wild population of fish on the kern.

now if you remove those planters long term.... where do you think the wild fish will end up? a cooler?

now.. yea.. change the regs blah blah blah... but thats not happening (of cource this is my NUMBER 1 choice - as I already posted... catch and release all wild trout entire river).Also.... if you plant fish in the 20 mile section.... the bait dunkers stay there! they dont go onto bullrun or slamon or any of the tribs... and they dont go out looking for ETC... or any other widl trout location...because they dont give a toot if its planted or wild... they just want to put it in the cooler.

its like kool-aid for the masses.

Its more about managing people...

imagine 30 million people with fishing poles, and tents ... looking for a place to wet a line... how do YOU manage that?

Craig... it sounds like your in the Stop stocking everything camp... which if you think it through presents a entirely new set of problems...

[rayfound]

I guess I should say that planters on the kern protect wild fish...

Well, I would argue that we have mainly feral fish on the kern, at least through the 20 mile... obviously the further you get from where the hatchery fish are dumped, the lesser degree of hatchery influence you will see.

The problem I see with this comment:

stockers have been on the kern for 30 years... and still we have a wild population of fish on the kern.

Is that you don't have the same wild population. The Native wild population has been replaced, largely, by a reproducing population of feral hatchery fish - Not Kern River Redbands.

[castaway]

of cource we dont have the same genticly pure population...

so if NO kern river rainbows even exsist on the 20 mile section... the argument that stocking hurts the KRR... is muted and eronious!

thast what I am saying! you just backed one of my points... thats stocking has no impact on the KRR. the past is the past and the native range of the KRR is not what it was... its gone forever... so stopping stocking will not bring that back - unless we electroshock the entire river... but even that doesnt work to eraticate all trout.

Oh and trust me Ray.... I see thousands of 1" trout on the Kern... I see TONS of wild fish that do reproduce... despite 30 years of stocking... stocking just keeps the wild guys smaller and harder to find... but that doesnt bother me. (stockers protect wild trout... to a point - of cource CNR the entire river is best)

[midger]

..........................

Also.... if you plant fish in the 20 mile section.... the bait dunkers stay there! they dont go onto bullrun or slamon or any of the tribs... and they dont go out looking for ETC... or any other widl trout location...because they dont give a toot if its planted or wild... they just want to put it in the cooler.

its like kool-aid for the masses.

Its more about managing people...

imagine 30 million people with fishing poles, and tents ... looking for a place to wet a line... how do YOU manage that?

Craig... it sounds like your in the Stop stocking everything camp... which if you think it through presents a entirely new set of problems...

I wish they would stay in that 20 mile section, but unfortunately, they don't. I've seen numerous bait containers upriver of the JD Bridge, and I seriously doubt the wind blew them there. The old "the grass is always greener" undoubtedly drives many upstream. Stocking won't help this and it will just bring folks back to the river by the hordes, and the cycle of poaching will continue.

Actually, if folks really want fish to fill their cooler, I imagine it is much cheaper to go to Costco and buy them. For the cost of the gas they burn to get to the Kern, they could buy a lot of fish. It's not that I'm so opposed to their type of entertainment, rather, I'm appalled by the way they leave the river when they depart. I can honestly say that the Kern is one of the dirtiest rivers I've ever attempted to trout fish on. Stocking will just perpetuate the trashing, but so be it. I'll just go to a different river.

[Rob909]

I do support a regular stocking below Fairview/stocking KRR and C&R above Fairview plan.

I do think I’m an ethical fisherman, and I visit and spend my money in town if I think the fishing may be good and I will enjoy myself. There are many other places to fish and spend money besides the Kern. It's a choice for everyone.

However….

I don’t live in Kernville, Wofford Heights or Isabella.

I don’t own a local business.

So who am I to judge what the locals would prefer in order to keep business alive?

Many people will consider this a victory for the Kern. I personally don't know how any ethical fisherman could, however. A great opportunity likely will be lost due to lazy policies and communities unwilling to face change and embrace a more ecologically responsible approach to tourism.

As most people live in the “now” and the local business owners need tourism to stay afloat, I can understand the desire for tourism now as opposed to future tourism. If you’ve gone under because there is no current business, then future business means nothing.

Continued stocking will keep tourist dollars coming into town until an alternative/different strategy is put in place. Regardless of all the other outdoor activities to be found locally, no stocking at all had to be hurting business owners.

I would venture to guess if you had a local business which sustained your way of life, had a family, children to care for, a mortgage, a car payment or two, bills to pay, etc, etc……you might be less critical of the community “unwilling to face change”.

Would you be willing to wait for the more “ecologically responsible” change and the tourism that may or may not come with it, and risk losing your business and your home? Or would you want change that brings tourism now and sustains your business and way of life?

I know what my answer would be.


Rob

[castaway]

so you dont think fisherman-sprawl (like urban-srawl) would occur if all stocking was stopped?


All the poachers and bait dunkers would just pack it in? hang it up and go to costco?

hahaah I doubt that... They would be out searching for a new honey hole to poach... like any of your fav. creeks..

the Kings river is a good example of this... god where would all those people go if the lower wasnt stcoked...yep... the upper. But because the lower is stocked... the Upper remains relatively nice.

[castaway]

yea craig.... if no KRR are even in the 20 mile section.... explain how putting stockers in that sectio nhurt the KRR... may as well say putting trout in the lower Kern hurts the KRR...

Its super easy to argu against someone.... but try defending your point of view...


So lets go with No stocking? and you cant change the world... the regs are still the same.

Reason why? (please show me one piece of evidence that stocking severly impacts the wild fish on the 20 mile section of the Kern... because over 30 years of stocking and still a HUGE wild trout population...20 fish a day is just fine by me.)

Benefits? What is gained by not stocking? Less people visiting? they are going to go someplace...remember that.

Costs?

[FlyinFish]

I dunno, since they stopped stocking that creek below the lake, it's been pretty empty down there... But Pyramid Lake has been pretty * crowded...

One of my (ex) local creeks used to get stocked. I find tons of reports where people hold up dirt covered wilds while they were out to get their 5 stockers. If they didn't stock, people would either have no freakin clue there was even fish in there, or just consider them too small and go fish a lake somewhere instead. Do you think stocking the first mile of the WF deters bait dunkers from going upstream? Or do you think stocking in the WF introduced bait dunkers to the water and they go upstream and kill whatever they can and if it wasn't for the stocking they would have never bothered fishing that water? I think the later...

Now, the Kern may be different because the fish can get bigger there and the bait dunkers will like this. But I think the number of years it would take to get big fish in there would be enough to deter all the usuals to fishing the lake(s) instead.

How does the wild trout section of the Owens do so well? And Hot Creek? Why are there no bait dunkers slaying those good sized fish in these waters? I'm not being a <oops!>, I'm just asking the question. What do you guys think? How do these waters do so well?



I'll give you my experience. If I want to fish the wild trout section of the Owens, my bait dunking cousins want to fish PVR. The only reason my bait dunking cousins came with me to the Kern was to fish the stockers. They didn't dare waste their time hiking up passed the bridge. If I mention the creek, they'd rather just drive up to Pyramid Lake. They didn't even look at Bishop Creek, and went and fished Lake Sabrina. If the WF isn't getting stocked that week, I go alone. And so on.

I see a trend in my experiences... but there are good points on both sides. And I've definitely found bait cans in places where I thought were quite a bit in. But, I think we can manage it like other waters. Some poaching will happen, but I don't think it will deplete the fish supply.

I dunno, I try to find as many examples as I can because that is data. Speculation is always too risky. What about other states? I know CA is a unique breed and there's like 300 million of us here, but what do other places do that works or doesn't?

[castaway]

Good question... why do less people poach the lower owens and Hot Creek? I dont know...

Creeks are different... but a major river that supports a town.. is different.

the WF is different... there is no Mexican res. on the river... there is no fly shop, no hotel, no families that live off the river... human factors must be considered.

you do make a point that stocking brings people to the area, and thus increases the opportunity for poaching

but Hot Creek and the lower owens dont get treated like the Kern?

Even the complicated regs around the monument seem to be respected...

so why do poachers like the WF and the Kern?

So the argument is that stocking brings more "bad" people to the area.... thats a fair argument.

[Sasha]