Why Private Water is Bad For Fly Fishing
I have seen quite a lot on social media lately about private water. Bloggers have blogged about it, and the Trout Unlimited blog has shared two posts recently highlighting private water here and here. I believe support of pay for play private water is not a positive trend. Here's why.
"It's not hunting if you have to pay for it"- The Hound, Sandor Clegane, Game of Thrones Season 1
I have fished private water a couple of times. The first was
the private pond of a guy who had been after me for a while to come fish his
private paradise. He had a little spring-fed lake that he had stocked with
Nipigon strain brook trout and he wanted the Fontinalis Rising guy to come fish
it. Paying customers paid around $400 a day to fish it. No quid pro quo was
ever explicitly stated, but I think it’s obvious that he was hoping for a
little press.
Only I couldn’t write it.
I went and caught brook trout from 16-22” inches, all
beautiful fat fish. He fed them minnows he bought from bait suppliers (he had
them stocked directly into the pond) and said that despite all the fish, the
bottom was crawling with crayfish that the bigger fish lived on. I never did do
a blog post about it. I couldn’t. It felt wrong.
It’s not just that I was fishing his private stocked fish
and it was basically a goat rodeo. It was that the entire time he was rowing me
around in a tight circle he kept saying “why would anyone want to go fish
public water, fight the crowds and catch small fish, when they could come
here?”
I felt dirty.
I had built my blog around fishing for wild
fish in wild places, and to have this guy denigrate that experience and propose
that his little lake, with his stocked and protected fish, was somehow superior
to the genuine experience? It was insulting. Raising pheasants in a backyard
coop doesn’t make you a great bird hunter. Fishing his little lake wasn’t a
genuine experience, no matter how similar the mechanics.
The other piece of private water I fished I was far more
excited about. It was the private stream of a wealthy businessman in Michigan
that was going to be guided by a local outfit, and a buddy of mine was running
the program. He invited me to come along and check it out. What I was excited
about, is that with Michigan’s liberal stream access laws, almost no water like that
exists in the state. Here was water that had hardly been fished at all for
maybe twenty years and hadn’t been stocked in that time. I wanted to see what a
wild stream looked like when left alone, wild and un-fished. It was great. It
was fishing, and we had to work for the fish we caught. We
both lost fifteen inch brook trout, trophies in that part of the state. I broke
off a two foot long brown that evening as the sun went down.
They stocked the river with cookie cutter rainbows the next day. For me it destroyed the magic.
My experiences fishing private water illustrate that
“private water” is no one thing. It ranges from wild streams managed with flies
only, barbless hook, strict catch and release practices, and quotas that limit the number of
anglers per day or week, and have nosebleed membership fees, to Bubba’s
roadside tourist attraction trout pond, with broadcast pellet feeders on the banks, and the cheesy
plywood rainbow trout out by the road advertising “feed the trout” and “no
license necessary.”
I have since moved to the southeast, living in North
Georgia. Wild trout in the state are hard to find, diminutive in size except in a
handful of waters, and very difficult to come by. It requires a lot of effort
to even find them, and the rewards can seem small. Private water with big fish
is very easy to find, for a fee. They typically keep their waters stocked with large fish,
and to keep the fish on their stretch of stream they have pellet feeders on the
banks that daily dispense feed into the rivers. The banks are groomed, there’s
fish in every hole, and it’s easy to have a great day catching big fish. A lot
of them install wire netting at both ends of their property to keep the fish
in. I'd say most of the fly fishing guides in North Georgia derive at least a portion of their income guiding this water.
If there is one thing I respect in America, it’s private
property rights. Georgia doesn’t allow the public to access small streams that
flow through private property. It’s a shame, but it’s the law. And if Georgia
allows private entities to stock their waters and feed the fish, that’s their
prerogative. Ditto for guys who want to plunk down some money to fish their
water.
But don’t think for a moment that it is good or healthy for
the sport. Here are my concerns.
1. It undermines support for public lands and wild fish.
2. It engenders false expectations concerning fish numbers
and size that aren't sustainable naturally.
3. It erodes support for conservation efforts ongoing and
future.
4. It undermines the notion of fair chase which is the
bedrock of sporting traditions and ethics.
5. It reduces fish to being another commodity to be
monetized and capitalized.
Let’s take those points one at a time.
1. It undermines
support for public lands and wild fish.
Both are under attack like never before
in the US. Politicians want to take our public lands and waters and sell them
off to the highest bidder. Most of this is to facilitate exploitation by
extraction industries, but developers are waiting in the wings too. They know
how much you spend on Disney, and if they can turn public lands into a theme
park they will. They’ll steal your public lands for a song and sell them back to you in experiences. Fly
fishing will be another carnival ride. Like the private waters in the southeast, when
sports don’t see or catch the numbers of fish they expect, they’ll stock the
waters and feed the fish to meet the demand.
And who needs or even wants wild fish after having
experienced the big numbers and sizes of fish on a pellet farm? Wild fish tend
to be smaller, they don’t hang out in plain sight, and are often harder to
catch. If private water fish are what anglers are used to, or perhaps all they
know, how do you get them excited about wild fish? If we don’t understand and
esteem the intrinsic value of wild fish, recognizing them as the foundation of
the sport, then we are on shaky ground. Wild fish are losing ground to hatchery
and stocked fish. Major lawsuits are being fought around the country over the
insidious and damaging effects of stocked fish. For anglers to come out and say
that stocked fed fish are just as much fun, just as valid a quarry as wild fish
undermines support for conservation efforts, and quality fisheries everywhere.
2. It
engenders false expectations concerning fish numbers and size that aren't
sustainable naturally.
Private water operators are able to stock as many fish
as they care to buy and put in the water. With supplemental feed they can
maintain a very visible, catchable number of large fish. Wild fish populations and size are determined by the abundance of naturally occurring food sources,
many of which fluctuate or are seasonal. This limits the distribution, number,
and size of fish. Studies in the northeast of large brook trout have shown that
almost all of their annual weight gain is achieved in the month of June. If an
angler’s first or only experience is on the unnatural conditions of private
water, it can be very disappointing to go to a natural stream and environment
and fish more challenging conditions. Their response is often to demand that
the state stock more fish, rather than learn how to catch wild fish on their
own terms.
3. It erodes
support for conservation efforts ongoing and future.
A USFWS biologist I talked
to said that when they go to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and talk to anglers
about restoring native Coaster brook trout, you can see their eyes glaze over and they
ask “when are you going to stock more salmon.” Too much of angling is
self-interested, to the detriment of wild fish and native species. Conservation
battles are being waged right now across the US in efforts to protect and
preserve wild fish and fisheries. Scientific evidence continues to mount that
hatchery fish and stocking are detrimental to wild fish stocks. One of the
factors that judges and fisheries managers weigh is public opinion and support.
Societal values matter. We can’t fight in court for wild fish, and in public
say that stocked fed fish on private water are just as good as wild fish. Not
only is it hypocritical, but there are plenty of our opponents in court and in politics saying the same things. Politicians who want your public land and support extractive
industries for instance, or proponents of hatcheries in the west and elsewhere. It will be a sad day when a federal judge reads our
own words back to us as part of a decision that overturns or denies protections
for wild brook trout, cutthroat trout, steelhead, or salmon.
4. It
undermines the notion of fair chase which is the bedrock of sporting traditions
and ethics.
One thing I miss about hunting is the lack of ambiguity. When you
squeeze the trigger or release an arrow, there is no doubt about what is about
to happen. You can’t pull your arrow out of a deer and let it go. In hunting,
fair chase is essential for important legal and ethical reasons. There’s a
reason the Pope and Young, and Boone and Crockett clubs do not allow animals from high fence private operations in their record books. Believe
me, the high fence operators have tried. The principles and ethics of fair
chase are the bedrock of hunting and fishing.
Catch and release has been a powerful conservation tool, but it has also served to trivialize the sport. Due to the fact that you can release fish relatively unharmed, it can be easy to see things in a relative manner. We say that since you’re releasing the fish anyway, what difference does it make? We make a false equivalence between privately stocked fish and wild fish, because the notion of fair chase no longer seems all that important. An interesting exercise to make is to change out fish species in the discussion and see what happens. Talk to a musky angler and see if he’s interested in hunting artificially high numbers of musky that are given supplemental feed. Ditto permit or bonefish or tarpon. Are stocked tame fish just as good as wild, or have we devalued trout in our own minds so much that it no longer matters to us?
Catch and release has been a powerful conservation tool, but it has also served to trivialize the sport. Due to the fact that you can release fish relatively unharmed, it can be easy to see things in a relative manner. We say that since you’re releasing the fish anyway, what difference does it make? We make a false equivalence between privately stocked fish and wild fish, because the notion of fair chase no longer seems all that important. An interesting exercise to make is to change out fish species in the discussion and see what happens. Talk to a musky angler and see if he’s interested in hunting artificially high numbers of musky that are given supplemental feed. Ditto permit or bonefish or tarpon. Are stocked tame fish just as good as wild, or have we devalued trout in our own minds so much that it no longer matters to us?
5. It
reduces fish and fishing to being another commodity to be monetized and capitalized.
Capitalism is a great system for creating and distributing wealth, especially
when pursued under a fair set of rules that apply to everyone. Some proponents
think that everything should be privatized so that market forces can prevail
and benefit everyone.
But there are limits to everything, including the
benefits and rightness of capitalism. For instance, you could sell your
children, and the argument can be made that a market exists. But no one in
their right mind will say that it’s right to do so, and as a matter of fact our
society will send you to prison if you try. There’s a lot of people out there,
politicians and corporations, who believe private enterprise and free markets
should rule the outdoors. Let our fish and game go to the highest bidder. Sell
your public lands and privatize hunting and fishing. When they see angler dollars spent on pay to play clubs, they see a market already at work that they wish to expand to all the outdoors.
There are also many voices in
the outdoor world who tout the economic value of fish, game, and outdoor recreation. It’s a useful,
but two-edged argument. Public lands and wildlife are extremely valuable for a
plethora of reasons. But at some point we have to recognize and protect at all
costs, their intrinsic value. At some point we have to say that no amount of
gold in the Bristol Bay watershed is worth the risk of destroying the
wilderness and fisheries there. At some point we have to step back from human
valuations on wild things, whether it be monetary, recreational or otherwise,
and recognize the right of wild creatures and places to exist and be protected
from us. This is their home too.
A continued anthropocentric view of the earth and wild things will lead to its ultimate destruction, and possibly our own demise.
We are the cleverest, most deadly animal ever to walk this planet, able
to manipulate it in ways never before possible by any other species. But at a certain point we have
to face the fact that we are still part of the ecosystem, and that our very survival is dependent on the natural world around us. The monetization of fish and wildlife ultimately serves to
cheapen and debase them. Just like any mineral we’ve strip mined, when we have
extracted all the value we can from them, we’ll toss them aside. Without
recognizing and defending the intrinsic value of wildlife and wild places, their absolute
right to exist apart from human valuation, they are all lost. Private water
with stocked, fed fish will probably always exist, but like a stream cutting through bedrock, it's slowly eroding the foundations of the sport.







