Making C&R Work is about Education, not Regulation

Over on the wvangler.com message board, we've been having some very interesting discussions regarding the need for Catch & Release on West Virginia's native brook trout streams. What seems to be missing in some of the exchanges, however, seems to be a lack of differentiating between PRACTICING C&R and REGULATING it.

In general terms, I think it's fairly easy for most conservation-minded anglers to agree that PRACTICE of C&R is a very good thing. The question is whether or not to REGULATE for C&R. I think if we can check our emotions at the door, put aside for a moment the very obvious issues regarding habitat and water quality, and look at things from a purely practical perspective, it just doesn’t make a lot of sense to advocate for widespread, general restrictive regs on brook trout streams (looking at regs for individual streams under specific criteria is a different discussion altogether and one I will touch on later in this posting).

PRACTICING C&R leaves fish in streams. No question about it. All arguments about hooking mortality rates aside, there are more fish in a given stream if folks PRACTICE C&R than if they don't. But PRACTICING C&R doesn’t require regulations. It’s a matter of personal choice. The vast majority of us, I think, would agree that we came to the PRACTICE of C&R through EDUCATION, not REGULATION. After all, how many anglers can honestly say they’ve become a C&R proponent because the law said they had to?

REGULATING C&R may seem like the easiest answer…just force folks to release their fish, and there will be plenty for everyone, all the time. But the easy answer is seldom the right answer, and it is fraught with pitfalls. Again, issues regarding habitat and stream conditions notwithstanding, there are practical impediments:

• First and foremost, the more regulations you put in effect, the more enforcement resources are needed to ensure that those regulations are being followed. Our DNR law enforcement is already stretched about as thin as it can be. Realistically, there is no money anywhere to throw into the pot for more CO's, and I can’t envision any scenario where they’d be pulled away from current duties to enforce broader C&R regs.
• Second, there are very real cultural considerations to be considered. Imagine the stink if the state of WV was to try to tell its 10th-generation mountain families that they are no longer allowed to keep a mess of brook trout for dinner from time to time. That would be like telling folks they weren’t allowed to kill squirrels anymore because Squirrels Unlimited wants to leave them all in the woods so they can take pictures of them.
• Third, creating regulations without broad (and I mean VERY broad) public support is just the kind of divisive measure that the industry types who care nothing for our environment or our sporting heritage love to see. When anglers are fighting between themselves over regulations it makes it a lot easier to slip in and clearcut a hillside or blow the top off of a mountain and dump the rubble in the nearest trout stream. A united community of anglers is a powerful and effective force. A divided community of anglers is an open door to abuse of the resource.

All that being said, I do think C&R regulations certainly have a place in our management strategy…again, these are specific instances under specific criteria. Streams in a recovering phase are prime candidates so that populations can re-establish themselves (i.e., Red Run). Waters where natural recruitment is low to moderate, but the ability to hold fish over is high—especially if the ability to grow very large fish exists—and where angling pressure is also very high, are also ones that might be considered for special regs (i.e., Back Fork of Elk).

Current research is fairly clear that restrictive angling regulations have little to no positive effect on native brook trout populations. And without clear and certain scientific data to the contrary, it seems to make sense to me that our fisheries managers would be extremely unlikely to invoke such regulations in a broad and general manner (i.e., C&R for “all” brook trout streams). I just see very little chance for success from public outcry on any game management issue without the science to back it up. It’s a Quixotic undertaking at best.

Personally, I am a HUGE proponent of Catch and Release. But when I say that I’m speaking much more about PRACTICING C&R than REGULATING it. And expanding the PRACTICE is all about education…helping people understand the value of our native brook trout, getting them interested in taking care of the habitat, and uniting against forces that would destroy the resource.

To me, that’s where TU's "Back the Brookie" program comes in...if we put our energies toward EDUCATING folks rather than REGULATING them I guarantee the benefits will be much greater and will last much longer.

Shaking the “Extremist” Label

Shaking the “Extremist” Label

I want to know when “environmentalist” became a bad word. It seems to me that to be an environmentalist would be considered a good thing…to be concerned about the environment.

Unfortunately, it’s my perception that environmentalists themselves…at least some of the more “hard-core” ones…have ruined it for the rest of us. “Environmentalist” has become synonymous with “extremist.”

Now, some in the “environmentalist” community would claim that the “extremist” label has been placed on them by the so-called “far-right.” They would tell you that it’s the greedy capitalists who want to extract natural resources with no concern for what they’re doing to our planet who have mesmerized the general public into thinking anyone who supports environmental causes is out to destroy the American way of life. But even if that is the case, who let it happen? Who continues to fight against everyone who wants to cut down a tree, mine for coal, drill oil wells or—and this is a good one—build a wind farm? How do you get people to quit viewing you as an extremist if you continue to act in what even the most moderate of folks would consider to be an extreme manner?

I’m all for making sure extractive industries do their jobs in an environmentally sensible manner. The fact is, many coal, timber, oil & gas and other extractive operators do operate outside the rules, and many others work awfully hard in political circles to bend or even change the rules to make their lives easier. The fact that many (in fact, it seems these days to be most) politicians cater to industry demands for more lax regulation and enforcement does not bode well for our environment and those of us who care for it. Maybe that’s why some environmentalists think they have to go to extremes.

Now before I get too far down this road let me say that I have a lot of pretty close friends that consider themselves fairly staunch environmentalists. And most of them I wouldn’t consider to be “extremists.” But it seems sometimes like they can’t help being their own worst enemies. As I told one of those friends once, they often can’t get out of their own damn way.

Wind energy is a case in point. “Environmentalists” want alternative energy sources that don’t scar the ground and cause air pollution. Cool! But they also don’t want to see giant windmills on ridgetops. And God forbid a few birds and bats run into the windmills and die. Now I’m certainly not crazy about the way those windmills on Backbone Mountain look and I think it’s a dirty shame that birds and bats are dying, but somewhere along the line there has to be some compromise. “You want your cake and eat it too,” I told my environmentalist friend. “It’s no wonder the environmental movement can’t gain any positive momentum…you have no capacity for compromising on anything.”

Maybe part of the problem is folks who care about the environment tend to be, well, caring. They’re wide-eyed optimists. They see things as they should be, and can’t understand why other people don’t see the world that way, too. And in some ways, maybe they’re right. To do things in an environmentally responsible manner seems to be such a no-brainer, it’s hard to figure out why some folks just don’t get it.

But, as a realist, and perhaps a bit of a cynical one at that (if the optimist sees the glass as half full and the pessimist sees it as half empty, the realist sees the glass as a vessel containing a balanced volume and the cynic wonders who stole half his damn glass), it seems even more of a no-brainer to see that the world doesn’t work as it should, it works as it does. So instead of expecting people to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing (then taking them to court the minute they don’t do the right thing) it seems to me we’d be better served to show people the benefits of doing the right thing, helping them to do it the right way, and realizing that sometimes you have to give something up in order to gain something else.

There are a lot of us out there who would like to be environmentalists, but we don’t want to be extremists. So we get into the whole sub-labeling game of conservationists versus preservationists. As a conservationist, I want to see our resources conserved and used wisely. If someone wants to mine coal, dig a hole in the ground and take it out, then fill in the hole. But don’t blow the whole top off a damn mountain and fill in the streams around it with the dirt that was between you and the coal. If you want to harvest timber, cut the trees you need and only the trees you need, leave enough to keep the forest alive, and re-seed behind yourself to keep all the mud from choking every stream in the drainage…but don’t mow every stick off a hillside, leave the tops laying around, and let the streams fill with silt every time it rains.

At the same time, if you want to preserve one area, be willing to let responsible extraction happen on another. Be willing to work with landowners who have a right to earn a profit from their property instead of hauling them to court at every turn when they do something you don't agree with.

The fact is, the world is never going to be the way it was on the Seventh Day again. It started changing on Day 8 and it’s been changing ever since. Sure, we need to conserve and protect what we’ve got left, but we need to realize that extremism is never going to be the path to preservation.

NOTE: Perhaps against my better judgement (who stole half my damn glass??!) I've changed the settings to allow comments on this blog without having to sign up for a membership. We'll see how it goes. I don't have any problem with disagreement or constructive criticism, but I don't want this whole thing to be an open forum that I have to manage. But I am intersted in what folks think, so please feel free to post your comments. If I don't like 'em, I'll just delete 'em! Now where's that damn glass??!!

Who's the expert, anyhow?

John McCoy’s column in the Charleston Gazette this morning got me thinking about how we as outdoor sportsmen always like to think we know better than our paid biologists and game managers how best to manage the resource. McCoy’s column cited a 1967 Outdoor Life article by O.L.’s then hunting editor, Jack O’Connor, wherein O’Connor opined that state biologists and wildlife managers are in a no-win situation:

“I long ago found out that if I wanted to get all the correct answers to the problems of management I was wasting my time if I went to see the game department biologist. These poor slobs have only studied the various aspects of game management in universities for from four to eight years. They only spend about 250 days a year or so in the field and in the laboratory.

“They only know something about ecology, biology, chemistry and various worthless subjects. As a consequence these biologists are all fatheads and their opinions are without value.

“If I want to get all the answers but quick I just go to any bar, barber shop or sporting-goods store. I quickly find that many people know exactly how all the problems should be dealt with, and that all this wisdom comes to them through a sort of osmosis — through having bought a hunting license, having spent two weekends hunting deer, or having talked to old Hi Jenkins, who used to be a market hunter who came here in 1908.”

Had O’Connor written that article in the new 21^st Century context, he surely would have added Internet chat rooms and message boards to his list of places to go to find these “swivel-chair experts,” as he goes on to call them. But I digress….

The gist of McCoy’s article gets to the heart of a kind of trap that nearly all of us outdoorsmen fall into at some point or other in our sporting careers. The more time we spend afield, the more competent we generally become at our chosen sport. Add to that the time most of us spend reading and researching about the habits of our particular favorite quarry, and we begin to feel like genuine experts. Then put us in an environment where we’re surrounded by other like-minded sportsmen who have sought the same knowledge and come to the same level of “expertise,” and we really get an inflated opinion of ourselves, both individually and collectively.

I speak from personal experience, and I’ve learned the hard way that I’m seldom really as smart as I think I am. When I first took over as editor of the West Virginia Trout Unlimited newsletter some six years ago, one of my first columns was to complain about how Pennsylvania’s trout management seemed SO far ahead of what we poor West Virginians had to deal with. I cited a PATU article regarding the desire to manage first and foremost for wild trout and I basically called out our WVDNR on the issue.

It’s funny when people are new to any environment how they forget that there was a whole history there before they arrived on the scene. I see it in new flyfishers regularly and went through the same phase myself….You discover things for yourself, on your own, and assume that you’ve had an epiphany of almost Biblical proportions. Being enthusiastic and wanting to prove yourself, you then rush out to share your grand discovery with your fellow anglers, only to find that to most of them your “discovery” is either an old-hat, tried-and-true tradition, or something that seems like a good idea to every newbie until they learn better.

That’s much the frame of mind I was in when I wrote that column all those years ago. My newfound enthusiasm had me skimming research from all over the East to find out why it seemed like other states had so much better wild trout fisheries than I thought we did, and how much better it seemed they dealt with the problems of over-harvest, stock truck chasing, and all the other ills I felt surely were just inherent in our system. In the process, I found all these great ideas from everywhere, it seemed, but right here at home. “How could we be missing something so obvious!?” I thought. “All we need to do is change the rules to be like (insert name of any other state here) and all our problems will just melt away like a gob of bacon grease on a campfire.”

Problem was, I didn’t bother to check at home first. If I had, I’d have learned more about West Virginia’s long history of wild trout management. I’d have learned that the reason some states might seem to have better wild fisheries has less to do with management than it has to do with more basic things like, say, water quality, or maybe something really unique like good habitat, or perhaps something as drastic as year-round favorable temperatures.

There are always going to be times when sportsmen disagree with wildlife managers, because as sportsmen we all generally come to a fairly narrow definition of the type of experience we as individuals or as groups of like-minded individuals want to enjoy. We tend to think that if the resource could just be managed in a way that suits us, everything would be perfect for everyone. Trouble is, there are just as many (or maybe many more) people who are seeking a different kind of experience. And they think if the resource could just be managed THEIR way, everything would be perfect for everyone.

Not only is it impossible for biologists and game managers to please all of their constituencies, the fact that those constituencies even exist makes it exceedingly difficult for them to just manage the resource from a sound scientific standpoint. Still, at least here in West-By-God, they do what seems to me to be a remarkable job of seeking input from all of those constituencies and working with them, rather than against them, to the greatest extent possible.

I’m not saying that I personally agree with every single thing DNR does to manage trout in West Virginia. But I will certainly concede that they know a hell of a lot more about managing trout than I do, and they sure have to keep a lot more people than me and my compatriots happy. My hat’s off to them for the job they do and I look forward to many years of working WITH them rather than AGAINST them to achieve what is truly best for the resource.

Low Water Ethics

The issue of the day facing trout anglers in West Virginia is the serious lack of rain. It’s only the first week of July and water levels are already more typical of what you’d see in August or September of a severe drought year. The question is, is it ethical to fish for trout under such conditions?

We all know that a trout’s optimum water temperature range tops out at about 70 degrees…while that can vary based on several other factors, it’s as good a general rule of thumb as you’ll find. In these low, clear conditions with hot days and not much nighttime cooling, a great many of our trout waters are already at or near that critical mark. The good news is, within most streams there are “thermal refuges”—springs, tributary inflows, etc.—where trout can go to beat the heat, at least for awhile.

But if water temperatures in general in a particular stream are over 70 degrees, should we be fishing for those trout, even if we intend to release them? Most research I’ve read indicates that trout become extremely stressed if they have to fight against an angler under such conditions. The lack of oxygen in the water makes it tough for them to “breathe” and can cause serious lactic acid buildup in their musculature.

Think about running a long distance on blacktop on a 90 degree day under sunny skies while carrying a heavy backpack. Your breathing can become very labored and you’re likely to cramp up and otherwise encounter muscle stiffness and pain. While we humans can recover fairly quickly from that sort of exertion, trout aren’t so lucky.

Unfortunately, we in the Mountain State don’t have many options when conditions get like this. The spring-infused Elk Springs Catch & Release section of the Elk River tends to maintain favorable temperatures even in low conditions, and we have a couple of stocked in-state tailwaters on the North Branch of the Potomac and the Gauley River below Summersville Dam that can provide trout-friendly temperatures and decent numbers of summer holdovers. Those willing to travel across state lines can find refuge in the Savage & Yough tailwaters in Maryland or one of the many Pennsylvania spring creeks.

Personally, I’m not a big fan of most low-water fishing situations, anyway. The return on the effort in most places just isn’t worth it. The exception, of course, is the Elk, where the trout (especially the wild population) are really “on their game,” to borrow a phrase from my good friend and Elk River guide Dave Breitmeier. It is technical trout fishing at its best, with the added benefit that the fish have been de-sensitized to our presence to the point where they’re not nearly as spooky as typical skinny-water fish. Small flies, gossamer tippet, and brown trout up to 20” or better that might refuse a #32 black midge in favor of a #32 olive put all our skills as flyfishermen to the test.

One of my favorite Elk River summertime patterns is a brace of nymphs fished in the faster chutes and pocket water: a #14-16 beadhead pheasant tail on the point trailing a #18-28 chironomid pupa tied with nothing more than a red glass bead and red thread (a fly to which I’m greatly indebted to my TU brothers Tim Coffman and Shawn Modesitt for turning me on to). Of course, you can always pick up some fish on terrestrials, but I enjoy the challenge of fishing to selective trout and trying to match their chosen entrée. To again plagiarize Dave Breitmeier, fishing the Elk under conditions like this will make you a better fisherman.

Outside of the Elk and those other few spring-fed or tailwater streams, it’s my opinion that most WV trout should be left alone during low water, high temperature conditions. Let them find those thermal refuges and wait it out until the rains finally come again. After all, if we truly want what’s best for the resource, we need to be willing to make some sacrifices for the overall health of the fishery.

Welcome to my Blog!

Welcome to Joe's WV Trout Blog! A lot of what you read here will be about issues facing West Virginia's trout and those of us who can’t seem to help chasing them and sticking hooks in their lips. Some of it will be philosophical, some will be serious, some will be humorous…Some entries will purely spout my sometimes overzealous points of view and others will be honest-to-God well researched articles. ALL of it will be strictly my own thoughts and opinions and will not necessarily reflect the views of any of the myriad organizations to which I belong or with whom I am affiliated. Occasionally I may invite in a guest blogger just to stir things up and offer different perspectives, but for the most part it will be my own rants and raves and the occasional wanderings of an idle flyfisherman’s brain.

Which brings me to the next point…My personal focus as a trout fisherman is as a catch-and-release fly fisherman. I hold no animosity toward people who choose other tactics and tackle, and I have no problem with folks who keep trout for the table, as long as it’s legitimately for food and not for showing off, and as long as it’s within legal creel limits and regulations for the waters where they’re caught. I welcome the points of view from my spin- and bait-fishing brethren, but for the most part my own perspective is what you’ll get here.

Hopefully, this enterprise will evolve into something entertaining, enlightening and thought-provoking. I welcome your feedback. While this will not be an open message board type of forum, it is my sincere desire to spark some discussions that can be carried into other public venues. I believe that open, frank and honest discussion of issues—and sometimes even heated arguments—ultimately lead to solutions.