Trevor Hawkins contemplates a state trout fishery for rivers that includes both wild and stocked fish.
The bleached river rocks, the colour and texture of weathered bones belonging to long deceased animals from parched Monaro farmlands, is all that remains of many free-flowing trout streams. These once hallowed rivers have given up their very existence in part or whole for the mighty hydro schemes that gave with one hand and took away with the other.
Of course, few could deny the piscatorial wonders created with the damming of many once famous trout rivers. The trade-off for lakes such as Eucumbene and Jindabyne in New South Wales was probably worth it in many anglers’ eyes, while other dams, such as Lake William Hovell in Victoria, have created mediocre trout fisheries at best, and destroyed previously outstanding wild rivers in the process.
Few could argue that the damming of the King River with Lake William Hovell, or the Buffalo, Rose, Catherine and Dandongadale Rivers with Lake Buffalo, or the upper Kiewa Rivers with the Falls Creeks dams have to a greater or lesser degree had a harmful effect on the rivers that flow into or out of those lakes.
But as already acknowledged, there have been trade-offs, and if I was to put my hand on my heart, in many cases the created lakes have given better, or at least more consistent fishing than some of the rivers.
And it could well be argued, by me and no doubt many others, that in many cases the dams have actually improved the trout fishing downstream in numerous instances. The Swampy Plains River below Khancoban Pondage, the Goulburn River below Lake Eildon, and the Tumut River below Blowering Dam quickly come to mind as examples of quality tailrace fisheries that have been created via the damming of rivers.
But I’d like to think we owe the ‘river spirits’ that gave up often staggeringly wild gorge areas of their existence for our water security were at the very least respected and given the protection they deserve. The bleached bones of often dried river courses that once flowed uninterrupted into larger waterways have now in many cases fallen to the ravages of droughts and bushfires. And to the science that says to stock trout streams is to waste money.
And while I agree with the notion that ‘wild means wild’ and should as a general rule be left to regenerate at its own pace, I also believe there is a case for intervention to step in and help ‘just hanging in there’ wild streams recover more quickly than they might, if left to their own devices. A case in point is the huge and decades long destruction that has been wrought on many Victorian trout stream headwaters due to back to back wildfires followed, as often as not, by scouring floods. The notion that the ecology of whole catchments or specific rivers will recover over time is very noble, and as they say, mother nature will win out and rebound, right?
But in reality, sitting back and hoping that this is the case is to a certain extent putting a lot of our faith in the ‘science’ that also used to tell us that the stocking of trout did actually work, that planting willows was good, that clear fell tree harvesting in upper headwater catchments could be managed without any detriment to those very lifeblood streams we all rely on, or that scouring floods gave river systems a good ‘flush out’ and didn’t adversely affect the whole ecology of the river.
Selective use of such science and the dismissal of any intervention is negligence and a dereliction of our duty to future generations, and more so the respect and duty we owe as ‘users’ of our natural resources.
The notion that feeder or breeder trout streams flowing cold into less than cold native fish catchments will rebound naturally, or even within decades after bushfires that have subsequently not only destroyed the tree cover, but have also burnt the undergrowth and the top soil, and pushed everything in its path downstream – including terrestrial and aquatic insects, native fish and trout, and the very river stones that create the habitat under which many of these fastwater animals lived, and then left behind a silty sludge of ash and choking soil wash off from the mountain areas, which are often ‘recovering’ regrowth areas.
The resultant silt not only chokes the aquatic residents that may have survived, but changes the river, often irreparably, or at least within a human lifespan. If you think I’m being a little over dramatic, then perhaps some before and after photographs or discussions with a few ‘old timers’ might focus your attention.
The notion that streams such as the Dandongadale River, Traralgon Creek, Jacksons Creek, Rose River, Nariel Creek, Thowgla River, Aberfeldy River, Barkly River, Cobungra River, Wellington and Macalister Rivers can all simply keep rebounding naturally and quickly after season on season of devastation when there is no or little downstream recruitment potential due to warm water storages is a true leap of faith that the science, at least this time, is correct.
At best a trout stream that has been hit hard with hot fires and scouring floods emanating in its very headwaters must take at the very least three years I would think to bring back some semblance of a trout fishery and the ecology that can support it. Or maybe never in our lifetimes.
The Macalister and Wellington Rivers in Victoria (both once iconic trout fisheries in their own rights) are now decades past major fires and floods and have not recovered to this day, and I seriously doubt they will in my lifetime. Both have been choked, and their silted shallower waters have meant the water temperatures have increased. Carp have moved in and can be seen systematically working the mud and small pebbles for any insects trying to re-establish. There are kilometres of water that can be inspected around Licola and up into the Wellington River without the semblance of an aquatic nymph showing up. Of course, there are still trout there, though mainly higher up in the headwaters, but for the old-timers who knew these rivers in their heydays they are both now simply shadows of their former selves.
It’s easy for people who aren’t local or familiar with an area to look at a stream a few seasons after a major fire and think that it looks as beautiful as ever. But if the aquatic insects haven’t re-established, or the trout numbers were decimated and there is little upstream recruitment due to dams or downstream warm water native fisheries, then that idyllic visual of everything being normal is just as likely an illusion.
Another example may be found in crossing the completely bone-dry and once beautiful Dandongadale River at Benny’s during ongoing droughts, and revisiting it again after some decent rain, for non-regulars to swear it was as good as it ever was. But a river can be dead but still look alive when the riparian regrowth has come back and the river is flowing clear again. But often as not that is simply just window dressing.
To stock or not to stock
The notion that it’s ok to stock native species into waters where they have never existed, or at the most were only ever there in small enclaves and presumably didn’t survive predation or environmental changes going forward, but despite anything being changed to help their self-sustaining recovery, will now do so if enough fish are stocked, is hard to fathom when the argument is proposed that you cannot stock trout in self-recruiting streams because it doesn’t enhance the fish numbers.
But if a stream has been devastated by fires and floods, is that still the case? Is it legitimate to just let it hopefully recover naturally and while it is doing so still encourage anglers to fish it?
What of the natural insects that have also taken a beating? Is there any science as to their recovery rates?
I should make it clear here that I’m not talking about streams that simply become too warm to support trout. No, not at all. I’m talking about streams that prior to any catastrophic events were well populated and self-recruiting trout streams.
Is it legitimate to artificially stock fish such as bass into rivers where they can’t breed? I would argue that we shouldn’t do this, especially when the cost per fish is high and the angler demand is miniscule.
Surely we can walk and chew gum at the same time when it comes to managing our dwindling wild trout streams? The notion that we can just encourage people to revisit areas six or twelve months after catastrophic events and have them target rivers with few or no recovering fish, is a recipe to keep that stream as a mediocre water if there is no regulatory precautions or processes put in place to facilitate a strong recovery.
Fishermen won’t keep returning if the fishing is mediocre at best! A huge amount of effort and money is put into stocking trout in the Goulburn River that does have natural recruitment, yet protecting spawn run fish in tailrace fisheries where for most of the season there is no ‘normal’ trout fishery and anglers stay away in droves just doesn’t make sense. The Macalister River below Glenmaggie Weir and the Tanjil River below Blue Rock Dam are just two examples of wasted opportunities that could do far more to encourage anglers out into regional areas instead of promoting small nursery streams.
We can justify stocking trout into the ‘South West Streams’ to cater for a few closed season trout anglers, but we can’t for the most part individually identify wild trout streams that need our help to re-establish a viable breeding population of wild fish to give those struggling waterways a head start. This seems odd to me! Surely if we can promote them as viable fishing destinations, we should give them some love to help them come back online quicker, if at all possible?
You can promote a river and an area as a fishing tourist destination as much as you like, but if the fishing isn’t up to scratch you’ll be losing the true anglers as return visitors. Heavily stocking and opening up rivers such as the two mentioned with trout would create the type of angler appeal that used to be the case in the Goulburn below the pondage back in the day. I’m not suggesting opening up rivers or sections that are now viable trout waters, I’m suggesting that there ARE opportunities I believe to heavily stock trout where there isn’t a serious trout fishery now.
Surely it’s time to start protecting and enhancing those wild streams we rely on for the long term viability of our wild trout fishery when the science is proclaiming we may be headed towards a decline of around 50% of our viable trout fishing habitat over the next two decades to warming waters.
So let’s start protecting what we know will be good trout waters while we can, before many of them turn into ‘dead rivers’ that may never come back naturally on their own, and in the meantime open up areas that will appeal to those that just want to ‘catch trout’. I think the stocking of big ex-brood fish into metro waterways and the Goulburn River has shown there is a huge demand for people to simply catch trout, and big ones at that, within a day’s drive from Melbourne, so let’s take advantage of that demand by metropolitan anglers for trout instead of stocking fish species that just don’t have the drawing power that our salmonids have.