Fish Stocking Taxing

  • As fewer Brown Trout from a state stocking program survive in the waters of Thunder Bay in Lake Huron, the fish takes on the allure of a trophy fish, especially since those that do survive can grow very large. Last year, a 28 pound Brown Trout won the tournament. It may be the biggest Brown ever to be caught in the state of Michigan. (Photo by Linda Stephan)

Most cities have their symbols. Imagine San Francisco without
the Golden Gate, New York without the Statue of Liberty, or
Miami without dolphins. Linda Stephan has the story of a
community that has linked itself with a fish that is not native to
its waters. And stocking that fish is costing taxpayers a lot:

Transcript

Most cities have their symbols. Imagine San Francisco without
the Golden Gate, New York without the Statue of Liberty, or
Miami without dolphins. Linda Stephan has the story of a
community that has linked itself with a fish that is not native to
its waters. And stocking that fish is costing taxpayers a lot:


The brown trout arrived in Lake Huron’s Thunder Bay by a
fluke. Back in the 1970s, about a thousand fish – surplus stocks
from inland waters – were simply tossed out into the bay by
biologists, as if the bay were a trash bin.


No one expected them to survive. They thought they’d just be
food for other fish. But the brown trout did survive. They
quickly grew large and feisty. The state started to stock these
waters with young brown trout every year because anglers
liked catching them.


In fact, it was so popular, they named a fishing tournament after
it: the brown trout Festival in Alpena, Michigan. This year, a
crowd of hundreds gathered, despite periodic rain showers, as
festival o-“FISH”-als weighed in a day’s catch… lake trout, walleye:


(Sound of announcer at tournament)


You don’t need a brown trout to win at the brown trout
Festival. And it’s a good thing because these days, most boats
don’t catch even one. That’s because things have changed.


The ecosystems of Lake Huron and the other Great Lakes are
changing rapidly, as foreign invasive species, such as the zebra and
quagga mussels, steal away food at the bottom of the lake’s
food web.


Plus, a migratory bird that’s been showing up in this bay in huge
numbers, cormorants, have been eating the small browns
stocked by state fish nurseries before the fish ever make it into
open waters.


For the past decade, the Brown hasn’t survived all that well in
Lake Huron. So today biologists estimate that, taking into
account all those fish that don’t survive, every time an angler
catches a big Brownie, it now costs taxpayers close to
three hundred dollars.


In other words, each brown trout caught represents about
three hundred dollars spent by the state stocking program.
Even though the brown trout is not native, people here say the
fish belongs in these waters.


Hobbyist Dick Cadarette at the brown trout Festival says the Brown has a special allure for
the angler:


“Well, because they’re the best eating and they’re the hardest to
catch. That’s why we call it the brown trout because anybody
can catch a steelhead – I mean a lake trout – but they can’t
everybody catch a Brown.”


As the large fish becomes more and more elusive, it takes on
the allure of a trophy fish.


Fisheries Biologist Dave Fielder says because of the cost – for
years now – the state has had good reason to quit stocking these
waters with brown trout, but they still haven’t. No one’s
willing to see the namesake of the brown trout Festival
disappear:


“What’s always amazed me is how the natural resources in
Michigan, including the fisheries that we enjoy in the Great
Lakes, is really a part of that local heritage and quality of
life for these local communities and becomes an important part of the local existance and indentity it’s important that we
as scientists don’t lose sight of that.”


But some say the fact that the local community has gotten used
to seeing the brown trout does not mean it belongs in the lake.
Mark Ebener is a Fisheries Biologist for the Chippewa-Ottawa
Resource Authority. It regulates fishing for five Native
American tribes:


“You tell a lie long enough and sooner or later people
believe it and accept it as the truth. You know it’s not that
brown trout belong here. brown trout were introduced
and they continue to be defined as an introduced species
into North America.”


Ebener says since the brown trout does no harm to native fish,
such as the lake trout, his organization doesn’t oppose the
stocking program. But he also says at the current cost, the
brown trout is a clear waste of taxpayer money.


Back in Alpena, Biologist Dave Fielder agrees the state can’t
keep stocking the lake with browns if so few continue to
survive. But, an angler himself, he looks with envy on a
mounted brown that took last year’s top prize in the tournament,
an unbelievable 28.2 pounds:


“Can you imagine landin’ that fish? That must have been
somethin’. Anybody’s who’s caught fish can look at that and imagine the battle they must’ve went through and the excitement they must’ve felt. And those are real feelings and that’s not to be
trivialized.”


That’s evidence to Fielder, and others who fish these waters,
that at least some brown trout have what it takes to complete
for food in the changing ecosystems of Lake Huron.


For the Environment Report, I’m Linda Stephan.

Related Links

If You Build It… Will They Really Come?

  • Riverfront Stadium in Cincinnati, OH just before detonation in 2002. The 32 year-old stadium was demolished to make way for a new stadium paid for by a sales tax. (Photo by Eric Andrews)

In cities across the nation, taxpayers are finding themselves facing the same dilemma: cough up big bucks for a new sports stadium… or else. Right now it’s happening in Washington, D.C. as the capital city tries to lure a baseball team. It’s happening in New York where the city’s deciding whether to spend 600 million dollars on a new home for the Jets in Manhattan. The debate is over what the taxpayers get. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Richard Paul takes a look at whether sports stadiums really can hit a homerun for taxpayers:

Transcript

In cities across the nation, taxpayers are finding themselves facing the same dilemma:
cough up big bucks for a new sports stadium… or else. Right now it’s happening in
Washington, D.C. as the capital city tries to lure a baseball team. It’s happening in New
York where the city’s deciding whether to spend 600 million dollars on a new home for
the Jets in Manhattan. The debate is over what the taxpayers get. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Richard Paul takes a look at whether sports stadiums really can hit a
homerun for taxpayers:


It’s sort of funny when you think about it. The most hackneyed rationale you can think of
for building a ballpark is… it turns out… actually the primary motivation when cities sit
down to figure out whether to shell out for a stadium. You know what I’m talking
about…


(MOVIE CLIP – “FIELD OF DREAMS”: “If you build it they will come…”)


Just like in “Field of Dreams.” Put in a stadium. People will show up, see the game, eat
in the neighborhood, shop there, stay overnight in hotels, pay taxes on everything and
we’ll clean up!


(MOVIE CLIP – “FIELD OF DREAMS”: “They’ll pass over the money without even
thinking about it…”)


Here’s the thing though… it doesn’t work.


“In the vast majority of cases there was very little or no effect whatsoever on the local
economy.”


That’s economist Ron Utt. He’s talking about a study that looked at 48 different cities
that built stadiums from 1958 to 1989. Not only didn’t they improve things, he says in
some cases it even got worse.


“If you’re spending 250 million or 750 million or a billion dollars on something, that
means a whole bunch of other things that you’re not doing. Look at Veterans Stadium
and the Spectrum in South Philadelphia or the new state-of-the art Gateway Center in
Cleveland. The sponsors admitted that that created only half of the jobs that were
promised.”


But what about those numbers showing that stadiums bring the state money – all that
sales tax on tickets and hot dogs? Economists will tell you to look at it this way: If I
spend $100 taking my wife to a nice dinner in Napa Valley…


(sound of wine glasses clinking)


Or we spend $100 watching the Giants at Pac Bell Park…


(sound of ballpark and organ music)


…I’ve still only spent $100. The hundred dollars spent at the ballpark is not new money.
I just spent it one place instead of another.


In Washington right now, fans have been told they can keep the Washington Nationals, if
Major League Baseball gets a new stadium that the fans pay for. Washington is a place
was more professional activists, more advanced degrees and more lawyers than it has
restaurants, traffic lights or gas stations. And as a result, it’s practically impossible to get
anything big built. But the mayor’s trying. He wants the city to build a new stadium in
really awful part of town and use baseball as the lever to bring in economic activity. The
reaction so far? Turn on the local TV news…


NEWS REPORT – NEWS – CHANNEL 8
ANCHOR: “Baseball’s return to the District still isn’t sitting well with some folks. One
major issue is the proposal for a new stadium.”


ANGRY MAN GIVING A SPEECH: “Tell this mayor that his priorities are out of
order.”


Turns out that guy’s in the majority. A survey by The Washington Post shows
69% of the people in Washington don’t want city funds spent on a new baseball stadium.
We Americans weren’t always like this.


MOVIE CLIP – SAN FRANCISCO WORLD’S FAIR
ANNOUNCER: “You will want to see the Golden Gate international exposition again
and again in the time you have left to you…”


Today politicians need to couch this kind of spending in terms of economic development
because no one will support tax dollars for entertainment. But there was a time in
America when people were willing to squander multiple millions in public money for the
sake of a good time.


MOVIE CLIP – SAN FRANCISCO WORLD’S FAIR
ANNOUNCER: “Remember: Treasure Island – the world fair of the West closes forever
on September 29th.”


In 1939, in New York and San Francisco, and then again in New York in 1964. they
spent MILLIONS. And the purpose was never really clear. Here’s Robert Moses… the
man who made New York City what it is today… on the 1964 Fair.


REPORTER: “What is the overall purpose of the new Fair?”


MOSES: “Well, the overall stated purpose is education for brotherhood and brotherhood
through education.”


MOVIE CLIP – NEW YORK WORLD’S FAIR
ANNOUNCER: “Everyone is coming to the New York World’s Fair. Coming from the
four corners of the earth. And Five Corners, Idaho.”


Maybe those were simpler times. When people were a lot more willing to let rich men in
charge tell them what was right and wrong. Today, a politician looking to build himself a
monument is going to have to convince people it’s for their own good – and economic
development is the most popular selling point. Looking around these days – more often
than not – it seems voters are willing to rely on a quick fix. Taken together, that’s a
recipe for this kind of thing continuing. After all, when you’re a politician building a
legacy for yourself, a sports stadium is a lot sexier than filling pot holes or fixing school
roofs.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Richard Paul.

Related Links