URGENT! Phil Scott Proposal to temporally halt trout stocking Petition Added! p5

[mudchuck]

YET....not one person on here that I can see has mentioned TU’s desire to have the creel limit on brook trout reduced from 12 to 6. MAYBE this guy from Montana is just trying to open our eyes to the fact that TU may not always have traditional core values of Vermonters in mind. Example being there is no scientific data showing the need to reduce brook trout creel limits and that biologists in Vermont do not recommend the change...yet they charge along...just an issue we’ll be facing soon enough.

I attended a couple of the baitfish meetings and there was mention of brook trout creel limits, but i think this was specifically related to a certain area and waterbody.

[grasspikerel]

So let me get this straight.  The biologists, who are really “TU,” are arguing against the brook trout creel reduction?  But TU is for the brook trout creek reduction? 

[KillerFish]

Woah - this thread is atom-bomb mushrooming out of control - full meltdown - defcon 1 -

Anyone catching anything lately? Lol

[Ice-n-Snow]

I spoke with my representative Leland Morgan on Friday.  He informed me that It would cost $7M for a filtering system that is required to keep the hatchery open after its permit expires shortly.  It currently cost $250,000 a year to run the hatchery.  Between those two things it has been decided to close the hatchery.   It is going to happen.  The plan is to distribute what was being raised in Salsbury to other hatcheries by making the other hatcheries more efficient.  Leland said we should not see much of a change across the state with our current stocking program.   Let's hope this is the case.

I appreciate wild trout and honestly, I'd much rather catch a wild fish than a stocked one.  The wild trout that I caught as a kid in Vermont - and that I and my kids still catch today - have value beyond measure.  I sincerely hope that my grandchildren and their grandchildren will have a chance to catch wild six-inch brookies in a little mountain stream that runs by their house.  Such fish started me on a lifetime journey that I have enjoyed beyond measure.   

But just twenty years from now there will be another billion and a half people on the planet and global temperatures will be continuing to rise.  At that point, when populations of wild Vermont trout are falling because of habitat degradation and warming waters, it will probably cost tens of millions of dollars to build a new hatchery just to maintain Vermont's trout populations.  We'll look back then and kick ourselves because we were talked into letting the Salisbury hatchery close because it cost just $7.5 million to upgrade and $250,000 a year to run. 






 

 

[Champlain Islander]

I spoke with my representative Leland Morgan on Friday.  He informed me that It would cost $7M for a filtering system that is required to keep the hatchery open after its permit expires shortly.  It currently cost $250,000 a year to run the hatchery.  Between those two things it has been decided to close the hatchery.   It is going to happen.  The plan is to distribute what was being raised in Salsbury to other hatcheries by making the other hatcheries more efficient.  Leland said we should not see much of a change across the state with our current stocking program.   Let's hope this is the case.

I got an email back from him stating the same. LOOKS LIKE THE HATCHERY WILL BE CLOSING.

[Quantoson]

Condolences. 

[Sacospinner]

First, TU does not want this hatchery to close.  I attended the meeting last week in Burlington and a lot of people were angry. The way I see it TU does more good than harm for all of us and that’s why I’m a member.

Second, this isn’t a dems vs rebublican game. Part of the reason this country is crumbling now is because of that mentality and the division of people. Now is the time to band together and ensure we have trout fishing far into the future.

$250,000 is chump change in the grand scheme of things. $12 million to repair the hatchery to current standards is the issue. Let’s turn this forum into something useful.

Does anyone have experience with filtration systems for for fairly large discharge facilities like hatcheries? What grants are available to modernize facilities such as this hatchery?

We have a lot of really smart and great fisherman that post on this forum. There’s no time for arguing, let’s be politically active and come up with a feasible solution to the problem at hand. Otherwise our fishing will be crap for the next 10-20 years.

[Quantoson]

If you have 60,000 fishermen who are willing to anti up $650 each, then you can make it happen.  You will need a budget of approximately $3.3 for purchase of site, design, DEQ, EPA, Permits, and I don't know how much for the powers that will control and oversee the project inspections.  There will be a lot of retaliation from powers in disguise.  Another $1.5 mil set aside to cover the law suits.

The business structure will have to be determine by a revolving board, with no one person having actual ownership.  The amount collected (if you have 60,000 fishermen) will allow the plant hatchery to be built to match or exceed discharge regulations now and in the future.  There will be enough to operate for a period of 20 years, if $ 17,000,000 is use for design, draft and completion, then $17,200,000 is used for operation and upgrades of the facility.  There are hundreds of costs obviously not explained here but none the less are direct costs.

Continued funding after the period of 20 years would be reliant on the efforts of the board to stage fund raisers, donations, etc.

I do piping CAD.  Willing to donate time after a design is approved.

[bootstrap]

mighty expensive bird food. i think the state has figured out they can feed the cormorants much cheaper with pan fish.

[keithm87]

I spoke with my representative Leland Morgan on Friday.  He informed me that It would cost $7M for a filtering system that is required to keep the hatchery open after its permit expires shortly.  It currently cost $250,000 a year to run the hatchery.  Between those two things it has been decided to close the hatchery.   It is going to happen.  The plan is to distribute what was being raised in Salsbury to other hatcheries by making the other hatcheries more efficient.  Leland said we should not see much of a change across the state with our current stocking program.   Let's hope this is the case.

Well this Leland guy is wrong and towing the Scott admin line. Look at the proposal. They want you to believe that not stocking any trout in statewide will have no impact. That is false. Don’t bend over and take it. Look at the Champlain salmon fishery, 2 years where the fish stocked didn’t take well, and the ENTIRE fishery basically collapsed, and that was with stocking, just low survival.

The lifespan of a rainbow or brown trout is give or take 4-5 years. That means that a 1 year old fish stocked, has 3-4 lake years in it, that’s assuming 100% survival.
The reality is the vast majority of our stocked fish are caught in the first year.
The state plan is to halt fish stocking for browns and rainbows for 2022, 2023, and 2024. If that happens tell me how many fish from the 2021 and 2020 stocking classes will be left to catch. For lakes with browns and bows, we will not see a return of “normal” until 2027-28 in all likelihood. For lakers it’s much worse.no stocking from 2022 until 2028, because of longer lives the laker fishing will seem ok for a longer time, as the bows and browns disappear more will target lakers, but those 10-12 and 15 lb 30-35 inch lakers take 10-15 years to reach that size. So as stocks in lakes drop off we will be left in 2028 with a bunch of 11 inch lakers, that will take until the mid 2030’s to reach maturity. Call me crazy but an impact felt for over a decade is quite the impact.

[KillerFish]

Well this Leland guy is wrong and towing the Scott admin line. Look at the proposal. They want you to believe that not stocking any trout in statewide will have no impact. That is false. Don’t bend over and take it. Look at the Champlain salmon fishery, 2 years where the fish stocked didn’t take well, and the ENTIRE fishery basically collapsed, and that was with stocking, just low survival.

The lifespan of a rainbow or brown trout is give or take 4-5 years. That means that a 1 year old fish stocked, has 3-4 lake years in it, that’s assuming 100% survival.
The reality is the vast majority of our stocked fish are caught in the first year.
The state plan is to halt fish stocking for browns and rainbows for 2022, 2023, and 2024. If that happens tell me how many fish from the 2021 and 2020 stocking classes will be left to catch. For lakes with browns and bows, we will not see a return of “normal” until 2027-28 in all likelihood. For lakers it’s much worse.no stocking from 2022 until 2028, because of longer lives the laker fishing will seem ok for a longer time, as the bows and browns disappear more will target lakers, but those 10-12 and 15 lb 30-35 inch lakers take 10-15 years to reach that size. So as stocks in lakes drop off we will be left in 2028 with a bunch of 11 inch lakers, that will take until the mid 2030’s to reach maturity. Call me crazy but an impact felt for over a decade is quite the impact.

Where do you see that the state plans to stop stocking? This doesn’t appear anywhere that I’ve seen...

[keithm87]

In the analysis that FW provided as part of the proposal. Can’t find it on their site, likely not a public doc, but was shared out on a different site.
https://doc-0g-54-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/securesc/ha0ro937gcuc7l7deffksulhg5h7mbp1/d2m8gr4v9phgi0jhd3c0cgpcnc6h5f9g/1549879200000/09661348033359379843/*/1D97T0jUvaMGdiIHgIJbubMNCHAllWOA5?e=

[mudchuck]

In the analysis that FW provided as part of the proposal. Can’t find it on their site, likely not a public doc, but was shared out on a different site.
https://doc-0g-54-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/securesc/ha0ro937gcuc7l7deffksulhg5h7mbp1/d2m8gr4v9phgi0jhd3c0cgpcnc6h5f9g/1549879200000/09661348033359379843/*/1D97T0jUvaMGdiIHgIJbubMNCHAllWOA5?e=download

Page is restricted and will not load

[keithm87]

copy the full url instead of trying to click the hyperlink... it cut the link off halfway down the address.

[keithm87]

Here is the important part:

The need to move broodstock to other state fish culture facilities to provide eggs for the VT
fish culture program - Given the fact that Salisbury Fish Culture Station has a prevalence of
having the fish disease furunculosis, the only way that a full swap of broodstock could occur
would be with the distribution of eggs to be grown out for broodstock for other hatcheries. This
would result in one of two scenarios:
o VTFWD would need to forgo stocking fish statewide until the new broodstock grow to
the point that they reach sexual maturity and can produce eggs for statewide stocking.
Gaps between stocking would be as follows.
▪ Brook trout – no catchable sized trout stocking for 2022 and 2023 seasons.
▪ Brown and rainbow trout – no catchable sized trout stocking for 2022 – 2024
seasons.
▪ Steelhead – no yearling steelhead stockings for 2022 - 2025 seasons.
▪ Lake trout – no yearling lake trout stockings for 2022 – 2027 seasons.

[mudchuck]

Just read it.
So this culture station has an issue with clean water discharge, the spawn get skin boils (furnunculosis) and currently the state has no means of spawning VT specific cultures from the other statewide hatcheries.
The dilemma is either close the place down because the clean water act compliance costs too much, or find the money (which the state doesn't have) to rebuild and bring into compliance.
As for broodstocks, the other dilemma is to close the place down and stop the spawning of broodstock that sends the product to the statewide hatcheries, or purchase from out of state which has the issue of not having VT strains.

Kicked the can down the road with CWA compliance for so long it's hit the curb and bounced back up to hit our collective faces...
Seems like every administration has deferred/deflected/sidestepped the clean water act issue for quite some time (at least 20 years, since Dean/Douglas) on dealing with the water discharge issues at this fish culture station and the hatcheries.

Not sure there's any way to fix this. Perhaps the VT strains could be made possible out of state, but I'm sure there are unintended consequences for doing this option if it's even feasible.
Fixing & upgrading would be very expensive, and the way our state legislature is leaning, IDK if they'd even raise an eyebrow towards this as they seem bent on more frontline social issues and this means the monies needed to handled any of this is going elsewhere.
Upgrading the hatcheries to accommodate broodstock cultures has bigtime issues with staff/finding space/discharge permits etc.
Bottom line IMO is the state, regardless of who/which administration/political party is in power, they need to stop kicking the clean water act and EPA issues down the road and seriously come up with a way to deal with compliance while not raising taxes on all of us or raising license/registration fees (taxes) because they won't do their jobs!
Regardless of party affiliation or liberal/conservative leanings, our state elected officials need to do their job and stop funding BS studies/fringe social issues etc. and deal with managing what is tangible: our state waterways/secondary tourism (fishing).
To lose this station is a blow that they admit in the write up that will impact us all financially as a state.


Decommissioning of the Salisbury Fish Culture Station in FY20 would have the following programmatic
impacts:
• The need to move broodstock to other state fish culture facilities to provide eggs for the VT
fish culture program - Given the fact that Salisbury Fish Culture Station has a prevalence of
having the fish disease furunculosis, the only way that a full swap of broodstock could occur
would be with the distribution of eggs to be grown out for broodstock for other hatcheries. This
would result in one of two scenarios:
o VTFWD would need to forgo stocking fish statewide until the new broodstock grow to
the point that they reach sexual maturity and can produce eggs for statewide stocking.
Gaps between stocking would be as follows.
▪ Brook trout – no catchable sized trout stocking for 2022 and 2023 seasons.
▪ Brown and rainbow trout – no catchable sized trout stocking for 2022 – 2024
seasons.
▪ Steelhead – no yearling steelhead stockings for 2022 - 2025 seasons.
▪ Lake trout – no yearling lake trout stockings for 2022 – 2027 seasons.
o Eggs would need to be purchased or secured from out of state sources.
▪ Brook trout, brown trout, rainbow trout, and steelhead – most likely purchased
from a private corporation (i.e. Troutlodge); however eggs would not be of the
right genetic strain and would have the potential to significantly impact the wild
trout population in VT. This would be an environmentally risky and financially
costly endeavor and result in the discontinuation of “strain critical” stockings (i.e.
the Willougby River steelhead program), as well as other concerns with
availability, biosecurity, etc.
▪ Lake trout - would need to be secured from the White River National Fish
Hatchery pending availability.

[KillerFish]

Lol - what a joke! I’m from Massachusetts. Won’t be buying a VT license next year, or the year after, or the year after...

New Hampshire here I come!

[keithm87]

https://www.change.org/p/phil-scott-save-the-salisbury-fish-hatchery-and-trout-fishing-in-vermont?recruiter=481857506&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition


Please sign this petition we have almost 800 signatures so far, I think if we can get a bunch more we can put the pressure on, and get a solution that works for everyone!

[mudchuck]

https://www.change.org/p/phil-scott-save-the-salisbury-fish-hatchery-and-trout-fishing-in-vermont?recruiter=481857506&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition


Please sign this petition we have almost 800 signatures so far, I think if we can get a bunch more we can put the pressure on, and get a solution that works for everyone!

signed

[bootstrap]

i signed it. looks like there will be 1000 signatures before lunch.

[VTMTB]

https://www.change.org/p/phil-scott-save-the-salisbury-fish-hatchery-and-trout-fishing-in-vermont?recruiter=481857506&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition


Please sign this petition we have almost 800 signatures so far, I think if we can get a bunch more we can put the pressure on, and get a solution that works for everyone!

Signed

[gogetthegaff]

Signed.

[keithm87]

We have crossed 1000 signatures in just over a day. there are over 100k fisherpeople in the state, hopefully the signatures keep coming in, and we can present it with hundreds of comments on the importance of the hatchery to the governor and Louis Porter.

[Quantoson]

Very Nice Job!

[keithm87]

Over 2000 signatures! Keep them coming! I will be working on getting the petition to the governors office some time next week.

[Champlain Islander]

Signed today 2/14/19

[bootstrap]

good editorial in addison paper

http://www.addisonindependent.com/201902editorial-closing-hatchery-worse-just-lousy-math-its-poor-policy

[Champlain Islander]

That was a good read and certainly presents another side of the issue.

[mudchuck]

good editorial in addison paper

http://www.addisonindependent.com/201902editorial-closing-hatchery-worse-just-lousy-math-its-poor-policy

GREAT READ, TO THE POINT!

I also brought this up and take issue with where they measure the pollutants in the water stream...
Me thinks DEC/ANR is not playing fair because the statement in the articles says the only location that changed where they measure is Salisbury...seems odd that suddenly the hatchery is out of compliance, not to mention the amount of poop water Rutland/Burlington and other city's let overflow into Champlain.

"One caveat is that the Salisbury hatchery does not currently pass federal water quality standards by virtue of a change in where the effluent point of compliance is measured. Currently the effluent, which contains phosphorus, is measured immediately outside the hatchery. A decade ago, the Vt. Department of Environmental Conservation (part of the Agency of Natural Resources) measured the effluent at the point before it entered Halmon Brook, a half mile downstream, and the hatchery was easily in compliance. Since then the DEC changed the rules. It turns out, however, the Salisbury hatchery is the only one at which the effluent is measured immediately outside the facility, while the others are measured after the effluent is diluted into nearby streams. The cost to bring the Salisbury hatchery into compliance is estimated at $12 million, but two options are obvious: the DEC or ANR could reassess its effluent point of compliance and revert to its historic point (as it was a decade ago), or the state could spend the $12 million as a capital improvement to the hatchery (financed over many years and therefore not present a budgetary concern.)

But let’s be real: Should the ANR be a stickler over this tiny bit of effluent from a single hatchery when it consistently turns a blind eye to the millions of gallons of wastewater dumped into Lake Champlain annually by sewage treatment plants throughout the Champlain basin? That is absurd. With the stroke of a pen, this could be reverted to its historic monitoring point, thus eliminating this self-imposed $12 million threat."

[Pike Panther]

Fantastic article.  Thanks for posting!  I signed the petition and urged others to do so as well.