Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Purple Squirrel]

To: T.U. Sipsey Chapter #639 Members,

   After much consideration I felt that I should state my opinion in regards to the Chapter’s current mission to possibly stock brown trout on the Sipsey Fork of the Warrior River.
   Everyone has and is entitled to an opinion regardless if anyone agrees with it or not. My opinion is based on the information that I have either read or heard from people I consider trustworthy and would not purposely mislead anyone along with my own past experiences and beliefs.
   I can not support any efforts to introduce brown trout into the waters of the Sipsey Fork of the Warrior River system. I believe the stocking of brown trout to be an unnecessary effort of the chapter’s time and recourses.
   I have come to these conclusions based on the following;
     1. Limited public access to the river itself, not the access paths. There is approximately 
         2.37 miles of river from the bridge @ hwy 69 to the confluence of the Sipsey and Blevins
         Hollow Branch (stream entering the Sipsey just below the dam).
     2. Lack of any perceived return of investment. What is to be gained by stocking 50 +/- miles of
        water along with 20 named and 5 unnamed feeder streams and creeks (Smith Lake Dam to
        Groguss) with a potential predator species that is known to survive in warmer water?
  The drawbacks to pursuing this endeavor, in my opinion are;
     1. Overcrowding of the fishable water from the dam to the B’ham Waterworks Pumping Station.
        This will lead to more pollution from not only trash left behind by anglers but also soil
        sediments from erosion from extra foot traffic to the trails.
      2. Possible damage to the existing fishery not only to the stocked rainbows but also other
        species downstream. This could possibly lead to damage to T.U. and this chapter’s public
        appearance, which is just the opposite of the requirements in qualifying for the matching
        grant from the national T.U. organization.
  As stated before, this is only my opinion and I hope it will be respected as I respect yours. I will continue to support this chapter in its efforts pursuing the purpose of Trout Unlimited, to protect and improve cold water fisheries as well as educating others of the resources available for all.

      Thank you,
   Earl R. Brinkley (aka Purple Squirrel)

[riversideflyshop]

Earl,
I think you bring up some valid concerns and hope to draft a response in hopes of doing exactly as you have done stating my opinions regarding those concerns. I only do so on this forum b/c I think both sides of the issue can be discussed and hope do so in a good way. (ie. I'm not picking on Earl or anyone who holds a differing opinion; I really like Earl and even if we disagree I believe we will remain great friends!) I just want to set forth a differing viewpoint.
1) There is always concern about fishing access. I can not hold this as a valid reason not to make the river better for fishermen. If the fishing is better the fishermen will come. That goes for n increase in Rainbow stocking or stream improvements and anything that might make the river fish better. I can not agree to neglect these ideas in favor of better keeping the number of fishermen down. Fishermen will fish further downstream if the upper section gets crowded, we always seem to figure out ways of dealing with the fishing pressure.
2) The damage has already been accomplished through the introduction of cold water to a warm water stream. Alabama has “77,242 miles of rivers and stream channels in Alabama, of which 47,072 miles are perennial (continuously flowing) whereas 30,170 miles of waterway flow intermittently, or only during and immediately after periods of rainfall.” (http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1645) Only 50 +- of one of them has trout year round. What are we trying to preserve? The Sipsey Fork is never going to be a “native” fishery. Why not make it the best river it can be, instead of trying to make it into something it isn’t… “native”.  Alabama power did an Environmental Assesment for this river as part of the relicensing (http://www.alabamapower.com/hydro/warrior_application/Biological_031307.pdf) There were no threatened species listed that could be affected by the introduction of Brown Trout.
Again, I respect Earl and his opinion but felt it necessary to put forth a differing opinion.

[Purple Squirrel]

Thanks Brandon.
This is exactly what I was looking/hoping for. Good open discussion. My mind or opinion is not set, I am always open to hear what others have to say. I feel it is important that we, Americans, be able to discuss our differences to reach a solution to any issue that is before us in a calm, fact based debate.  Opinions need to be based on information, and everybody can provide and listen to it.
Again, I agree completely with Brandon statement "even if we disagree I believe we will remain great friends"

[jdavis22]

I would definately love to have a river to catch browns in closer than TN or NC but don't want it to be at the expense of causing problems.  What I would love to see is the state or some unbiased group perform a study on the Sipsey Tailrace fishery itself.  I would love to have more information on the rainbows that are already stocked there as far as range, holdover percentages, possibility of spawning among other information.  Included in that study would be the feasability of stocking browns and how it would affect the fishery.  The fact that rainbows are stocked there now already makes it an unnatural fishery and I have no problem with that.  I don't know how long the state has stocked rainbows there but I'm sure that there were some studies done before they started dumping fish.  Maybe there is a student at Auburn in the fisheries department that is looking for a subject for their senior thesis that might at least get the study started.  Again, I would love to see the browns stocked, but would love to see some studies done first.