JR wrote:

The introduction of exotic species raises a different
set of concerns (potential impact on native species, for example), than
the introduction of hatchery supplements to help restore declining wild
populations of the same species.

I agree it is different but that doesn't mean that using hatchery
supplements to restore declining wild populations is benign. Just
because a fish is wild doesn't mean it's native. Supplementing
populations of wild fish with stocking can and will affect native fishes
especially if the fish being stocked aren't native. For many years
Colorado stocked its streams and rivers with Rainbow trout. They became
wild, self sustaining populations which were supplemented each year with
massive stockings of catchable Rainbow trout. This was one of the
primary causes of the near extinction of Colorado's native Cutts.

Even when it is native fishes that are stocked, there will still be an
impact on the other native fishes in the system. IMO, if it is necessary
to have an ongoing stocking program, this means that there are
underlying causes for this need that must be addressed in order for such
a program to have any success beyond raising domesticated fish.

Even though I do believe there are times and places where stocking is
needed, based on my experiences with it and research on it in the
Rockies, it can cause unforeseen consequences such as the introduction of
WD. Even though it appears illogical, research has also shown that
stocking can decrease rather than increase the population of the fish
that are stocked. Montana did a series of studies showing that the
stocking of catchable Rainbows in streams and rivers that already have
self sustaining populations, decreases the number and size of the fish
that the body of water will carry. Since the introduction of WD,
Colorado has stopped stocking in almost all streams and rivers. It's my
experience, and I think Charlie W. will concur, that the fishing has
improved in most places.

Willi