An internet search determined that the first no-kill trout fishing regulations were put into effect in Michigan in 1972. New York State followed in the early ‘60s, with those same regulations, for the Amawalk Outlet in Westchester County. Sometime later, no-kill regulations took effect on the West Branch of the Croton River in Putnam County. No-kill was adopted for the Beaverkill in the mid-1960s and on the Willowemoc in 1969. 

Fisheries managers implemented no-kill regulations when they found wild fingerling and adult brown trout in the Amawalk Outlet and West Branch of the Croton River. That meant that the rivers could produce substantial wild trout populations. Both rivers responded dramatically for a few years before growth rates slowed. By 1969, the Amawalk was experiencing an overpopulation of slow-growing trout.

The Beaverkill and the Willowemoc also responded when no-kill regulations were implemented on both rivers. The difference was that natural reproduction was not adequate to support those fisheries, so annual stocking programs were implemented.  Biologists were able to control growth rates to some extent, based on the number of trout stocked.

Two years ago, a friend sent me a copy of “Lost in the Driftless: Trout Fishing on the Cultural Divide” by Tim Traver. It’s a book about a region in western Wisconsin, and discusses the pros and cons of no-kill, limited-harvest and normal-harvest regulations. The streams in that region are spring-fed and very productive. While reading the book, I recognized the name Roger Kerr, reached out to the author, and was provided with Roger’s contact information. 

Turned out Roger and I graduated from the same high school, a few years apart. Both of us became fisheries biologists. Roger was responsible for the management of some of the streams in the Driftless region. Over the years, he moved wild brown trout from productive streams into some of the Driftless streams, where significant wild populations became established. 

When Roger retired, the Wisconsin DNR, based on support from local fishing organizations, began to implement no-kill or limited-harvest regulations on many of the Driftless-area trout streams. As a result, many of the locals—who fished with bait and lures—stopped fishing those rivers. And sooner, rather than later, the trout populations exploded and growth rates slowed dramatically. In other words, there were too many trout for the food supply and the size of those rivers. 

Despite Roger’s efforts and despite his extensive knowledge of the rivers in the Driftless region, the DNR refused to increase bag limits.

What I’m alluding to here is that in spite of the good intentions of fisheries biologists and local sportsmen’s organizations, rivers can become overpopulated with stunted trout when not enough harvest is permitted. That happened with the Amawalk, the West Branch and with several streams in the Driftless.

What has happened over the last 50 years or so is that anglers, fly fishers in particular and supported by the sport fishing media and fisheries biologists, have adopted a policy not to kill trout. Instead, they have placed trout on a pedestal, elevating them to creatures with godlike status. But those same anglers, myself included, take great satisfaction in hooking and fighting trout. Then of course there are the photo ops, with the fish out of water, gasping for air, before being ceremonially released. Those same anglers might fight a fish for a time, perhaps to near exhaustion, but will not kill or eat a trout. Yet they continue to support no-kill or restricted-harvest fishing regulations, even when trout become overpopulated and stunted.

Years ago, when we documented that brown trout in the Amawalk Outlet were not growing well and were overpopulating that small river, the data called for a regulation change. After presenting our survey results to the local sportsman’s organization, we recommended that anglers be allowed to take two trout per day, 10 inches or larger. Members of that group responded to the data we presented by requesting that we physically remove several thousand trout from the Amawalk and stock them somewhere else. Based on our management policy, that was an unacceptable solution, in that it would be extremely labor-intensive, very costly to implement, and would not solve the problem. That group would not take trout, regardless of what the data said.

The regulations changes we recommended were put in place and the fishery responded accordingly. 

But that’s the kind of mindset biologists face when they find streams in need of harvest, but anglers are reluctant to comply. Unfortunately, there is a philosophy, adopted by many in the American fly fishing community, that opposes killing trout, even when it’s biologically necessary. Further, when that philosophy is adopted by fisheries managers, it may result with any number of unhealthy, stunted overpopulated trout fisheries. This is not an easy issue to resolve, because the mindset of many anglers is to support no-kill or limited-harvest, even when management  requires a reduction in the number of trout present. 

Anglers need to remember that wild trout are very good to eat, and that there’s nothing wrong with killing a few for dinner, especially when it’s necessary.