Listen to Kirk Deeter and Tom Rosenbauer Shoot Across the Bow of Fish Conservation

 Recently, Tom Rosenbauer hosted esteemed writer, angler, TU higher up, and "conservationist" Kirk Deeter on The Orvis Fly Fishing Podcast, for a conversation that aired under the title "Have we gone too far with native species?".

My immediate thought was, well, what the f***?

I have long been fans of both Rosenbauer and Deeter both. But the conversation that they had was wrongheaded, inaccurate, and inflammatory. It also shows why anglers can be horrible conservationists. Anglers, without fail, have preferential views about the fish they target. These views can get in the way of conservation when the fish an angler likes to catch the most is a non-native species. In the podcast, Deeter talks about his love of brown trout. I think we all get that here, I adore brown trout. They're one of my favorite fish to pursue. But Deeter goes on to propose that they are not an invasive species because "they didn't swim across the ocean, themselves, and climb into these rivers". 

Apparently Kirk Deeter is completely unfamiliar with what scientifically defines an invasive species, because if brown trout had in fact swam across the ocean and colonized American water on their own, they would in fact not be invasive at all- that would be a natural range expansion. If what Deeter says were taken at face value, no species considered invasive today would actually be invasive. Cane toads in Australia, cichlids in Florida,  wild pigs throughout the world... these are invasive species, the poster children for the concept. None of them got there on their own. We put them where they are. Brown trout are invasive too and for the same reasons. Let's get that fact straight. Connotations and feelings aside, brown trout are invasive. In many cases they have huge negative impacts on the ecosystems they've been introduced to. 

This lead to the insinuation that native fish advocates support the complete, wholesale eradication of brown trout. Some individuals may believe that, sure. I'm not one of those. I've never even met someone that espouses that. That's the straw-man that has been hoisted by those scared to lose their (insert favorite non-native fish). We know that eradicating all non-natives is unrealistic and unnecessary. I am currently among the leadership of the Connecticut Chapter of Native Fish Coalition. NFC is sort of the rising stare of fish conservation in this country, certainly on the East Coast, with growing membership and new state chapters rising up. If we are the face of native fish conservation today, then take our stance as the example. We don't advocate for the removal of brown trout or other invasive species where it is unlikely to result in successful restoration (i.e. the damage is already done), or where they are too socially and economically important. That frankly leaves most places nonnative fish currently exist, so is it really too much to ask to have a handful of fisheries set aside to remove non-natives and restore native fish? I don't think so. 

Apparently that's too much for Deeter and Rosenbauer, who go on to cast doubt on the use of rotenone in native fish restoration. Rotenone is a classic issue that shouldn't be an issue. If you are unfamiliar with the topic, please read Ted William's thorough examination here. In a comment on the podcast, Williams gave a list of success stories tied to the use of rotenone: "Saved by rotenone from certain extinction was the rarest trout in the U.S., the Paiute cutthroat, native to only 11 miles of California’s Silver King Creek in the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness of the high Sierras. In fact, that rotenone project has been the only restoration effort that returned a native salmonid to 100 percent of its native habitat. Rotenone has safely and successfully slowed loss of Gila topminnows, steelhead, all five species of Pacific salmon, kokanee salmon, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, westslope cutthroats, Bonneville cutthroats, Lahontan cutthroats, Colorado River cutthroats, fluvial Arctic grayling, landlocked Arctic char, redband trout, rainbow trout and brook trout, to mention just a few. And it has prevented extinction of desert pupfish, golden trout, Volcano Creek golden trout, Gila trout, Apache trout, greenback cutthroat trout and Paiute cutthroat trout." 

Deeter dismisses the idea of attempting to reintroduce native grayling to Michigan, something that would only be attempted in select waters and would hardly impact trout fishing in the state at all, per the state's plans. Rosenbauer then brings up the National Park Service's use of rotenone on the Upper Gibbon in a tone dismissive of the strategy. Lacking any familiarity, Deeter deflected to the use of gillnets to remove lake trout from Yellowstone Lake, an action which he commended. He then stated that "it's really a case by case basis". 

Mr. Kirk Deeter... I have no expectation at all that you will ever read this, but I'd like to address you directly anyway. That is how it is for us! It is and always will be a case by case basis, for all of us involved in native fish conservation. This idea that native fish advocacy has any sort of absolutes is absurd. That accusation gets levied at NFC all the time, and yet we routinely steer away from addressing watersheds with established wild non-native fish populations because they are already either too messed up to save or too socially important. The Farmington, the Swift, the Deerfield, The Upper Deleware, the Ausable, the Manistee, the Madison, the Green... on and on goes the list of rivers nary a serious native fish advocate would bother even bringing up because we know there is no point. You've created a strawman, a charicature of us, a lie, and it hurts what we are all trying to accomplish. This is anti-conservation. 

To answer the question posed by the podcast: clearly, no. We have not gone far enough with native species. And that is made more clear by the ignorance espoused in this podcast by two respected individuals that should know better. For angler "conservationists" still not to know these facts, about what makes a species invasive, about rotenone, about reintroduction projects- that's all a problem. 

I'm a fishing guide. I'm a fishing writer. I make a big chunk of my living off of fish and quite often non-native fish. But I recognize that in my role as a conservationist, I routinely need to separate my enjoyment and my business from that work. Having carp, pike, huge largemouth, big browns, and all manor of other fish not native to CT around is good for business and fun for me but when it comes down to it, if it makes sense and is feasible to wipe out non natives from a stream or pond to save or restore and at-risk native species, I'm going to say yes to that because that's the right thing to do as a conservationist. I think that thought process is lost on most anglers. That isn't necessarily their fault, a lot of this is still very new and it hasn't made it in front of everyone yet. Unfortunately Deeter and Rosenbauer were no help at all in this podcast. NFC's own Bob Mallard will be on the podcast soon for a rebutal, and I will post the podcast here when that happens. 

Until next time, 

Fish for the love of fish.

Fish for the love of places fish live.

Fish for you.

And stay safe and healthy.

Thank you to my Patrons; Erin, David, John, Elizabeth, Brandon, Christopher, Shawn, Mike, Sara, Leo, C, Franky, Geof, Luke, Streamer Swinger, and Noah for making Connecticut Fly Angler possible. If you want to support this blog, look for the Patreon link at the top of the right side-bar in web version.