Advocating for Fish Stocking Reform
In California, along with many other places in the West, native trout numbers are getting smaller and smaller. California’s own state fish, the golden trout, is just one troubling example. Scientists have shown a link between fish stocking and these declines. Not only does fish stocking impact trout but also other native fish and amphibian species, most notably those that are found in more remote and isolated waters, such as the mountain yellow-legged frog and Cascades frog.
Despite the numerous studies that show the link between fish stocking and native species declines, the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has never formally conducted an environmental review of its stocking practices and their impacts on freshwater ecosystems. In 2006 alone, DFG planted over 50 million trout into California’s lakes, rivers, and streams.
PRC’s fish stocking reform effort focuses on pushing for accountability from the state of California for its actions and ensuring that proper environmental analysis is undertaken, especially since native aquatic species — and their survival — are at stake.
Why Fish Stocking Is a Problem
Fish stocking creates three main problems for California’s natural environment:
1) It can spread disease, invasive species, or unwanted fish;
2) Stocked fish prey on and compete with native fish and amphibians for food and habitat, and;
3) The planted fish disrupt the food web and alter natural ecosystem processes to the detriment of native species.
Of the many native fish and amphibian species in California listed under the Endangered Species Act, a substantial number of them are threatened by fish stocking. All told, the California Department of Fish and Game’s (DFG) ongoing fish stocking program directly impacts over 35 fish and amphibian species, and many more continue to be affected by fish that were stocked over the past 150 years. In fact, scientists have concluded that trout stocking is the single biggest factor in the decline of native fish species in the Sierra Nevada.
What PRC Is Doing About it
Our goals are twofold. We aim to:
- Protect existing quality habitat and healthy native fish and amphibian populations from further degradation due to ongoing and historical fish stocking practices, and
- Secure protection of high-quality watersheds from the threat of future stocking.
After many years of urging DFG to reform its fish stocking program, PRC and our colleagues submitted comments in August of 2005 and again in July of 2006 formally requesting that the agency initiate an environmental review of its fish stocking program in order to consider its impacts on imperiled aquatic species. When the review was not conducted, we asked the courts to help us. In our legal petition we requested that DFG fully assess the environmental impacts of the fish stocking program. Only then can sound resource management decisions be made about the state’s long-term fish stocking strategy so that future generations can continue to enjoy the ecological and recreational bounty that California’s stream, rivers, and lakes have to offer. The court found in our favor in May of 2007, holding that DFG was required to prepare an Environmental Impact Report by the end of 2008. DFG was unable to meet this deadline, however. So PRC went back to court and negotiated a deal with DFG to limit stocking while the agency prepares the EIR, now expected at the beginning of 2010.
The negotiated agreement allows several important categories of fish stocking carried out or permitted by the Department of Fish and Game to move forward in the coming year. These include stocking that is necessary for reintroduction of native fishes to their historical range; stocking deemed necessary for salmon or steelhead recovery; stocking that is specifically required by ongoing mitigation orders or other legal provisos; specific salmon stamp-funded enhancement stocking programs; most stocking in farm ponds and large, man-made reservoirs; and previously permitted private party stocking. Stocking will be curtailed for the time being in waters where any of 25 native fish and amphibian species considered sensitive to fish stocking are known to occur.
Read our scoping comments on the Environmental Impact Report, which has been combined with an Environmental Impact Statement under the Federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Read our press release of November 11, 2008, concerning the court's consideration of interim protective measures while CDFG prepares the EIR.
Read our press release of November 20, 2008, regarding our agreement with CDFG on interim protective measures while CDFG prepares the EIR.
Read comments by PRC, Center for Biological Diversity and Earth Justice on the Draft EIR/EIS in November 2009
Learn More: (click on each item)
- California Fish Stocking Reform Report
- FAQ's
- Table of California Species Impacted by Stocking
- Effects of Stocking-up Freshwater Food Webs (science article)
- San Francisco Chronicle Opinion Piece on Fish Stocking
- Court ruling requiring California Department of Fish and Game to prepare an Environmental Impact Report
- Court order regarding interim protective measures while CDFG prepares the EIR
Our Partners
Other Materials:
- Read our May 10, 2007 press release
- Read our Oct. 5, 2006 press release
- Read our 7/24/06 comments to the California Dept. of Fish and Game
- Read our 8/31/05 comments to the California Dept. of Fish and Game
- Read our August 2001 press release.
- Research on Fish Stocking Impacts in the Klamath-Siskiyou and Sierra Nevada Bioregions
