Wild or native?

Native or wild?

It is the they’re/there/their of fly fishing.

“I caught some native browns from that pretty little spring creek in Montana the other week.”

No, you didn’t. Unless “Montana” happens to be the name of some fancy European estate.

“Look at the colors on this rainbow! The stripes on these Delaware River natives are amazing!”

False. Rainbows will move around a lot, but not from the west coast to the east.

***

I know that by this point you’re probably trembling with apprehension to even utter the words, lest I wag a digital finger at a peccadillo of vocabulary. So I’ll do my best to explain:

• Native fish were there before we were. If a fish is still present in its indigenous range, it is native to that area. Therefore:
  • Brown trout are native to countries like England and Germany
  • Brook trout are native to the eastern half of the United States and Canada
  • Rainbow trout are native to the Pacific side of the continent
• Wild fish are naturally reproducing (not dependent upon hatcheries) in a stream, but are not indigenous to that watershed.
  • The fish commission started stocking browns in a Pennsylvania spring creek in the late 1800’s, but they haven’t addend any since the 1940’s. Those fish are wild.
  • There are brook trout in a remote mountain lake in Utah, but no public or private group is managing it as a brook trout fishery. It is a wild

Why does this matter? Well, we fly fishers do like sounding smart and having everything be just so. But there are greater implications than appearing superior and/or having something to argue about.

Conservation is indelibly linked to fly fishing. And part of our contemporary vision for conservation is ensuring that the species in an ecosystem are not throwing it out of balance. Naturally, the most appropriate flora and fauna for any stream are those that were present prior to the unnatural influences of us.

Brown trout eat little brook trout in eastern streams. Rainbows interbreed with pure cutthroat strains in the Rockies. For a number of reasons, those situations aren’t ideal.

However, once in a while a non-native salmonid fills a niche either vacated by an extirpated fish or one that was previously unoccupied. Or, the new species’ tolerances fit the changed or changing environment. That isn’t the worst situation in the world.

But back to conservation. Both native and wild fish deserve protection. Wild fish, that is, deserve protection as long as it isn’t at the detriment of a native population. That can be a difficult pill for Joe Fisherman to swallow. Why bother good, big, hard-fighting fish in favor of the dinks? Because the “dinks” are supposed to be here, and they might have a fighting chance if given the opportunity.

Fish that can live, breed, and reproduce without the assistance of people are going to be the healthiest, most robust, and heartiest populations. If the species is question is native, it is good for the ecology and to a lesser degree the heritage of a watershed. If it is wild, then it is emblematic of the ability of fish and their habitats to adapt to adverse circumstances.

This is all an incredibly cursory and unscientific look at this little quasi-controversy. I’m sure there are people much more ichthyologically inclined who can make a better, more cogent argument.

But we can all have our pet peeves, can’t we?

Now, if we could all figure out this trout/char business…