It is always perplexing that we always value what we don't have in our backyards. Many times we spend money to control one non native in order to support another non native. When will we learn. It seems as if the hordes have long past the gates and without significant investment and commitment all hope in returning something to a semblence of its native state is lost.

I take issue with eradicating non-natives with the piscicide rotenone. In February 2011 the National Institutes of Health released a study showing that people who use rotenone are 2.5 times more likely to develop Parkinson's disease than the average. Hundreds of studies now link rotenone to Parkinson's disease. In addition a five-year study on the Strawberry River in Montana monitored native bug populations following application of rotenone and determined that 20% of those species never recovered. Rotenone does NOT belong in bodies of water that are upstream of our drinking water supply or upstream of farm fields or bodies of water that cattle and deer drink from. Another problem with rotenone is it just plain usually doesn't work. It has to be applied repeatedly because the non-natives keep returning.

Studies on the Verde River in Arizona showed that native fish populations were thriving until cattle were excluded from riparian areas. This caused the stream to change. The vegetation changed and more importantly the stream bottom changed. All the native fish died after grazing exclusion and were replaced by nonnatives that thrive in the altered environmental conditions that exist in a cattle free riparian system.

Cindy: You have been duped by chemophobes.  First fish restoration is not “responsible” if it doesn’t work.  And when non-natives and mongrels are polluting native genes fish restoration cannot work without rotenone.  Antimycin is more effective than rotenone in many situations, but the guy who made it died.  And existing batches are contaminated and therefore ineffective.  The Parkinson’s pitch is pure BS.  In the study rotenone was mainlined into rats’ brains at several thousand times the concentration it is used in fisheries management.  And the rats developed Parkinson’s-like symptoms, not Parkinson’s.  Not one study has ever linked Parkinson’s disease with rotenone formulations used in fishery management.  And in 80 years of rotenone use in fisheries management  there is not one recorded case of a human being harmed.  If you “take issue with eradicating non-natives,” you have given up on earth’s healthy ecosystems and biodiversity and are apparently okay with dull sameness--house sparrows for bluebirds, Asian carp for salmon and trout, kudzu for wildflowers….  Finally, what’s your point about cattle?  Are you telling us that native fish were only okay once we put cows on top of them?

Cindy,
If you took the time to read my entire piece rather than just search for one word , you would understand that my issue is preventing the introduction of non-native species in the first place.Native Brook Trout (NBT) are already present in these streams and need only to be free of non - native competiton to thrive. In NBT headwater streams electro-fishing and angler creeling can go a long way to contoling brown trout numbers providing we stop stocking them every year.
Thanks, Ted for setting the record straight on piscacides.While they are not yet needed in East Fork Greenbrier and other WV streams they have been a valuable tool in other native restoration projects nationaly.
 

Bob: I should have added that electro-fishing is another tool.  I have seen it work in small headwater streams of the sort you’re talking about.  But it’s often forced by chemophobes, as it was for Gila trout restoration.  I think that’s a shame because it is extremely labor-intensive and not anywhere near as reliable as rotenone.  In the Gila it failed several times and the mongrels came storming back.  I saw it work in the Smokies, but again very labor intensive.  And it had to be redone a few times.

Ted,
I agree we must keep every tool honed and ready , I am a cabinetmaker by trade, in the box. We must not lose sight of the problem here in WV ,which is the introduction of non-native species into NBT streams  by TU. Our organization ( I am a TU life member) states its highest priority is the protection of native salmonids  and this action of overstocking has been shown to be detrimental to NBT populations. If we can end the introduction of non-native species it will save effort and controversy on eradication.

How much brown trout reproduction do you have?  If it's limited, stopping the introductions (which should happen anyway) will work.  If it's not, you need to do some reclamation.

Ted,
Unfortunately we do not have independent data on brown trout reproduction in the EFGB and nearby streams such as the Laueral Fork of the North Fork Potomac (LFNFP). The WVDNR which provides the hatchery fish will claim sucess for the fingerling program at one time whilst stressing the need  to continue stocking the next. I view this as a three step process;
1 get TU out of the overstocking business
2 with its" consumer" base gone push WVDNR to stop overstocking native trout
3 with no new invasives being introduced begin the process of developing a science based program of resroration for the affected watersheds- the needs will undoubtedly be different - habitat, water quality, developement pressure, ag issues etc. some populations may only need to be left alone. Independent science is critical
 

wi

Thanks Bob.  Well, if there’s any good news it’s that the browns won’t turn your brookies into mongrels.  Tiger trout almost never occur in the wild, thank God.

Bob,
This specific issue was discussed during the last Fisheries Committee meeting.  I had sent you an e-mail for your position paper, but didn't receive a response.
The decision was made that the exisiting paper is clear enough with regards to stocking over brook trout.  There is a USFS assessment of the East Fork that contains electroshocking data.  The data showed few brook trout at their sampling locations.  Of course, there could be many reasons for that.  Most noteably fish migration.  As in, the brook trout haved moved out of the main stem when the shocking occured.
Here are my feelings on your proposal:
WVCTU and its affiliated chapters will not participate in the introduction of non-native fish into streams or connected watersheds containing native brook trout.  That would essentially eliminate all stocking outside of southern WV.  That would include the Elk River.  It should be also pointed out that stocking over native smallmouth bass in just as questionable.  It also should be pointed out that the WVDEP has no special protections for smallmouth bass streams.

WVCTU and its affiliated chapters will not participate in the introduction of non-native fish into streams or connected watersheds that have hydrological, habitat or historical prospects for the restoration and reintroduction of native brook trout.  This would eliminate stocking on a host of streams.  Of the top of my head that would include the Cranberry, Williams, Cherry, Shavers Fork, Dry Fork, Gandy Creek (not a bad idea), the East and West Forks of the Greenbrier, Laurel Fork of the Cheat, Gauley, Glady, Tygart and a few others.
WVCTU and its affiliated chapters shall advocate for the adoption of the above policies by governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations and private partners which have policies or projects affecting cold water ecosystems in the state of West Virginia.  See above.  The list of acceptable streams would be easier to determine.  It would essentially eliminate nearly all of the trout stocking in WV.  While this seems to be a good idea, I don't know that the general public is ready to end stocking in WV any more than other eastern states are.

The motion stated in this blog post is incorrectly stated. The minutes will reflect that, but Mr. Williams failed to engage all stakeholders to determine accuracy. I suppose inaccurate journalism sells, but what it doesn't do is provide a constructive vehicle for agendas. Rather, it exemplifies destructive tactics. Almost all chapters in WV engage in assisting DNR in stockings in watersheds containing NBT populations. This is not exclusive to EFG and this is not a Council function, but that of a chapter. Councils have a role in by-laws to provide guidance to chapters, there is no grounds in the by laws for dictating chapter activity or advocacy as has been shown in the past when chapters engaged in advocacy counter to council. Furthermore, Williams unfairly singles out WV based on a complaint from a disgruntled volunteer who failed to gain a majority vote. Implementing change, particularly change to a long standing activity endorsed by fisheries managers, is slow and patient. I'm fairly certain that other eastern states engage in hatchery trout introduction in watersheds harboring NBT. In addition, I believe research on nonnative impacts varies depending on a vast number of variables.

I'm not advocating for stocking fingerling brown trout in EF Greenbrier, but I am advocating for more responsible journalism and more constructive tactics than secretive dealings that intend to slander the only grassroots sportsman organization in WV advocating for coldwater conservation.

“Mr. Williams failed to engage all stakeholders?”  Hello!  Are you a stakeholder?  Are you not now engaged?  Any reader is free to contact me and post something on this blog.  And any reader is free to comment on posts.  My netiquette guidelines:  Posts and comments must have something to do with fish or wildlife; Posts and comments must be more or less intelligible; Posts and comments must be somewhat civil; and posts must be all of these things and substantially accurate.  I have inspected wild brook trout populations in West Virginia and, while I’ll let you and Bob hash it out about what the minutes said or didn’t say, I know that Bob’s main complaint is well taken and his main points accurate. Finally, you are correct that other eastern states dump alien trout on top of native, wild brook trout.  The fact that they do it doesn’t make it right.

Mr. Smith,
Mr Williams did not write the post ,I did. I authored the motion presented at WVCTU winter mtg. Digital copy was provided to WVCTU Chair and several print  copies were provided at the mtg. As the motion was not seconded , there probably was not a word for word copy entered into the minutes.
Your statement that overstocking is endorsed by fisheries managers should have been qualified by stating that some may (WVDNR) and that others do not (Shen. Nat. Park, Mon. Nat. Forest. VGIF- regarding the Laurel Fork )
The TU Nat. North Am. Salmonid Policy also opposes overstocking of native salmonids.
That others do or that we always have are not valid reasons to continue a policy that peer reviewed science has shown can have harmful effects . TU should always lead not follow on native trout issues

Bob: Twelve years ago, with the help of Maine brook trout biologist Forrest Bonney who wrote a letter carefully explaining the hideous damage hatchery trout do to wild trout populations, I got stocking stopped at a privately-owned pond I fish in southern Quebec.  Since then our wild squaretails have increased dramatically in size and number, and their copepod ectoparasites (those white “lice” you see on trout fins and gills) have plummeted.  Two falls ago we measured a 20-inch fish, the largest taken in at least 80 years.

It should also be pointed out that the East Fork of the Greenbrier is stocked with adult hatchery trout.  If the fingerling stocking were to stop, it would still be stocked.  The USFS assessment of the East Fork identified habitat impacts as a bigger limiting factor than stocking.

This is not a new issue.  In fact, the East Fork has been stocked with fingerlings for quite some time.  In addition, it is stocked with adult trout as a put and take fishery.  That is not to be taken as my support of the stockings.
The USFS assessment has identified serious habitat issues within the Greenbrier and until those are corrected they will be limiting factor for brook trout populations, not the brown trout.
Link to the USFS assessment:
http://www.wvhighlands.org/PDFs/ugwa_09-07.pdf

Again, if there are to be no stockings in watersheds with connectivity to brook trout populations, then the vast amount of trout stockings in WV would stop.  The brook trout would not return to the main watersheds where these stockings occur as the the stockings are not the limiting factor.

Lee: I have no doubt that what you say is true.  But, as one who has worked for a state game and fish agency, I’ll make this point: Put-and-take stocking of brown and rainbow trout in degraded habitat has long been an excuse for allowing habitat to remain degraded.  I’m not against stocking.  It has its place.  In my state its place is in water that can’t produce trout and where they can grow.  But in my state hatchery fish are also stocked on top of wild brookies that rarely reach 10 inches.  The angling public prefers 15-inch, semi-finless rainbows and browns.  Game and fish agencies have information and education departments.  But instead of educating the public to appreciate real trout they pump out “news releases” about where their agency is stocking the rubber ones.  If you can find a cold, clean brook that’s not on the stocking list, you’re apt to have some memorable trout fishing.

This is the same garbage that continues in West Virginia. It was stated here that stocking brown trout over brook trout has been going on for a long time. Well, that's reason enough alone to not stop it according to most! West Virginia , according to a National Trout Unlimited Rep that contacted me yesterday, indicated that West Virginia should be paving the way for brook trout in Appalachia. We are however sadly dragging up the rear. We spent thousands of dollars to restore the headwaters of brook trout streams and then simply allowed the populations that we restored to be caught and used as table fare. I'm not against table fare of any kind, but...I am against over harvest which is happening all over the state on native streams. Yeah yeah, I know, I'm going to hear the same pathetic song and dance about show me the studies that prove my theory. Well, I've already read those studies. Read them for yourselves. West Virginia TU does NOT support catch and release on brook trout ( not by majority ) or anything that might rock any higher powers to be due to the fact that it's not popular and folks would be offended by a new policy, in my opinioin. As long as we think like that in West Virginia, we'll continue to drag up the rear. Change causes conflict. Look at what happened when we broke away from the country across the Big Pond a couple hundred years ago. 
    It's sad to say,but what's actually going on here is a control issue. It has very little to do with trout or anything other than control. I'm calling it like it is and those are the facts. We need either a house cleaning or a wake up call to help the West Virginia trout program.
Jerry Andrews, Trout Unlimited Life Member and proud supporter of the West Virginia brook trout, their habitat and the wonderful natural resource we have here in West Virginia.

Jerry: I know about four meadow streams in Mass. where I can walk a good ways into the woods and flycast for wild brookies.  And guess what the daily limit is for wild brookies in Mass.  EIGHT!  And the managers will correctly tell you Mass. doesn’t have many wild brookies. 

Lee,
Your comments remind me of jumping from stone to stone to cross the stream, the bottom line on the East Fork of the Greenbrier decision to stock hatchery trout over native brook trout by the WV Division of Natural Resources was to create a fishery of larger trout not based on any scientific base line data. To attempt to draw on the East Fork Study by the Forest Service as justification to continue to stock hatchery trout clearly avoids the problem.
On a September 20, 2010 FOIA request to Mike Shingleton Cold Water Fisheries Director for the WVDNR he stated;
The DNR does not have a specific written policy regarding the stocking of hatchery trout in watersheds containing native brook torut populations.
This should be the first concern of the West Virginia Council of Trout Unlimited's Fisheries Management Committee. The lack of scientific date to use as a base line before a decision was made to stock hatchery brown trout fingerlings in the East Fork Watershed and others should be a major concern for the committee. With over forty years of stocking adult and fingerling hatchery trout in the East Fork Watershed the native brook trout population has remained steady based on the infrequent surveys provided by the DNR.
In the forty years of overstocking the watershed health has improved, canopy is greater, large woody debry is better and reparian cover is improving. Water temps hold through the summer and fall but due to low water in later summer and fall when the Kanawha Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited stocks the browns for the DNR, holding water is a premium. The hatchery browns are limiting the native brook trout. This is a problem, the brook trout are there in good numbers we should be working to improve their fate, stocking hatchery trout over them is not what I would consider good trout management by the DNR and cannot be supported by the WVCTU if we stand behind our mission.
 

West Virginia has never valued its wild-brook trout resource, a national treasure that should be promoted like California's redwoods or Minnesota's timber wolves. Here’s an example of state thinking: The official patch of the state's Division of Natural Resources features a white-tailed deer, a cardinal, and a rainbow trout—native to the Pacific Northwest. This fish—called a West Virginia Centennial Golden Trout—is a pigment-impoverished mutant that turned up in a hatchery in 1954 and has been cultured ever since. It's so popular that Pennsylvania borrowed the warped genes to concoct what it calls its “palomino trout.”  Ugh!

This discussion is typical of how this has gone.  There is a push to make a definitive statement about not stocking over brook trout.  The absolute fact is that reality is not that simple.  I don not support the East Fork stocking and do not participate in it.
So to make this really easy for people, answer this question?
Do you want stockings to stop on the following streams:
Elk River
North Fork of the South Branch (inlcuding Smoke Hole C&R)
South Branch
Shavers Fork C&R
Cranberry C&R
Back Fork of Elk C&R
Williams C&R
North Fork of Cherry C&R
Dry Fork of the Cheat
All of those streams have populations of native brook trout or are directly connected to native brook trout streams.
And to be technically correct, the palomino trout is not the same as a golden rainbow trout.  It is a variant of the golden rainbow, but not the same.

Ted, that was one intelligent assessnment! I've lived in WV my entire life and never noticed the DNR patch with the rainbow trout. See what I mean? Jerry

The premise of this debate hinges partly on the concept that Trout Unlimited manages fisheries. We do not. We can make grassroots fisheries management recommendations to managers, but without their support it is moot and nothing more than show. Effective advocacy does not include denigration of management agencies, developing secretive management meetings without inviting managers or destructive tactics.

Change is indeed slow to embrace in WV as it is in all rural southern areas. That's more than fisheries management, but an American cultural phenomenon. When parties become impatient with progress and seek to denigrate, their tactics become counterproductive. I'd encourage tactful rhetoric, patience, openness in intent and communication. As a native trout fisherman I am awed each year at the number of new places I find healthy Brookie populations in WV. My database is extensive. I've seen no evidence of fishing pressure impacts or nonnative salmonid impacts myself. I believe select streams would greatly benefit from ceased introduction of nonnative salmonids including, but not limited to EFG, but I do not believe the public chastising going on in this blog is effective. As a matter of fact, I'm 100% positive it only serves to set back progress.

“I do not believe the public chastising going on in this blog is effective.”  Philip: You mean that public criticism of backward management on this blog isn’t gonna change backward management?  I guess I’d have to agree.  But should it not start somewhere?

“And to be technically correct, the palomino trout is not the same as a golden rainbow trout.  It is a variant of the golden rainbow, but not the same.”  Lee: I didn’t say it was the same.  I said PA took the WV mutant fish and, with the warped genes, concocted its own Frankenstein fish--no less ugly.  Fortunately both the WV and PA mutants stand out so well that herons pick them off fast.

Wow, I wasn't even drinking when I wrote that mess. 

I misread you post on palomino

I was late vetting the comments because I just got back from Hyla Brook.  It was dead for the first mile, but where the cold water came in it was absolutely packed.  No fish over nine inches.  But I don't judge wild brookies by size.  Here's  my take from the recent issue of  Northern Woodlands:

Place in Mind

Ted Williams

Having one’s rivers is important, like having family or a country. With rivers, though, you get to choose. I prefer mine rippling with wild brook trout, which is to say clean and secluded. And because my time and place coincide with an irruption of my species, this means my rivers also must be small – headwater streams really, the tops of systems known even in Back Bay.

An hour west of Worcester is the rivertop I love best, Hyla Brook, I call it, because that is not its name. Here under bald eagles and turkey vultures, in woods demanding good boots, lunch, the better part of a day and, sometimes, a compass, it’s hard to remember you’re in Massachusetts. In the general watershed are dozens of other brooks, some bigger than Hyla, some smaller, none quite so lovely. All are as safe from human defilement as is possible for running water to be, not because people enjoy their beauty or treasure them in any way, but only because Boston drinks them.

Maybe Hyla Brook is someone else’s, too, but of the hundreds of other anglers I have met along it over the years, not one has ever been human.

I first saw Hyla on a green topo map while ensconced in my easy chair beside a black-cherry fire. Having established that the brook was not on the state stocking list, a prerequisite for even casual consideration, I looked more closely at the map. Lots of unbroken green all around; I got interested. Gradient looked good; I got very interested. There were riffles and pools, and meadows where gaudy, stream-bred brook trout could sip mayflies and lounge in icy, air-charged currents that tumbled down from hemlock-shaded ledges. I rushed there the next morning.

No day on a rivertop is ever better than your first. That magic morning on Hyla Brook

a few Mays ago, I had found one of the few spots in Massachusetts where you can hike hard for 30 minutes and be deeper into the woods than when you started – a secret, timeless place fragrant with skunk cabbage, leaf mulch, and wet earth, where wood frogs quacked and redfin pickerel streaked from swampy shallows, where newts lay suspended in backwaters and sashayed into muck, where spring azures skipped among unfurling ferns and fields of watercress waved gently in clear current over clean gravel. In and out of the brook, clumps of marsh marigolds were in brilliant yellow bloom and, as far back as I could see, the banks were carpeted with pale yellow trout lilies. A pair of wood ducks burst from an ancient beaver flowage and went squealing downriver. Trout were too much to hope for.

Here and there, in the deeper pockets, I flipped out a puffy dry fly on a two-pound tippet, but nothing rose to it save fallfish – “chubs,” trouters call them, spitting the word. Fallfish grunt like pigs. The bigger they are the louder they grunt. Once I ate one, and it tasted like wet Kleenex. But something about Hyla Brook made me look hard at fallfish, and I saw them for the first time not as “trash fish” to be squeezed and bush-tossed, but as a part that belonged. Really, they are quite beautiful, very streamlined, silver in their youth, bronze and pewter in maturity. Thoreau called the “cousin trout.”  Basically he found them to be cupreous dolphin.”

Not expecting trout, I naturally found them, suddenly and in astonishing abundance. They were rising to little blue mayflies in the deep, quick water at the head of the first meadow exactly as I had imagined the night before. I pushed through thick alders, wiping spider webs from my face and grimacing as icewater rose to my waist. Finally, I was in position. The fly drifted about six inches before it disappeared in a lusty boil. It is difficult for brook trout anglers to admit, but the brutal truth is that these noble fish not only are nonselective in their feeding behavior, but reckless, suicidal even. One can “match the hatch” if one chooses or one can toss out a Japanese machine-tied Bumble Boogie. Nine times out of ten the results will be the same – instant slurp.

That first trout from Hyla Brook was the third biggest I have ever taken there – only 11 inches. She ran the line around a beaver cutting, and I reached down and tickled her smooth flanks, lifting her toward the surface so slowly she never struggled until she was on the bank. She was perfectly proportioned, deep-bodied, with a smallish head indicative of good feed and fast growth. The markings on her green back resembled old worm trails on the inside of elm bark, and her chestnut sides were flecked with scarlet, each ringed with blue. Her belly was orange, fins crimson and trimmed with ivory. I fished on for two miles, catching wild brook trout all the way – little fish of big country – and at dusk a great horned owl floated out of the woods and settled on a drowned cedar under a crescent moon.

I want more people on rivertops, but it does not follow that I want more of them on mine.

Rivertops are very personal things, and I have shared mine only with an eight-year-old named Scott.

“Wild trout, unlike men,” writes John Voelker, the sage of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, “will not – indeed cannot – live except where beauty dwells, so that any man who would catch a trout finds himself inevitably surrounded by beauty: he can’t help himself.”

-30-

Ted Williams lives in Massachusetts.

The prenise of this debate is not that TU makes fisheries mngmt decisions. If one read the post carefully they would understand that the issue is not what the WVDNR does but rather what TU does- participate in the overstocking of native trout. This participation is entirely within TU's control.
How does the stocking of non-native hatchery trout further TU's mission to Protect , Reconnect and Restore native salmonid populations ?
What is the benifit to NBT populations resulting from TU's participation in overstocking.?
Is TU a conservation organization or a fishing club ?
TU is not bound by the management decisions of the WVDNR rather by its own policies. If the DNR chooses to overstock a native population that is no reason for TU to participate. Further the internal or public debate within TU about its mission and policies does not require the involvement or control of gov. agencies. TU's policy decisions are directed by its mission which differs from that of gov. agencies and other ngo's.
 Similarly  TU can not control the policies or specific mngmt  decisions of resource agencies. We can only lobby and educate. When these decisions are in line with our mission we should endorse them , however when these decisions are in opposition to our mission , we must  oppose them. Resource agencies may chose actions which are detremental to native trout for any number of reasons , most of them being political or consumer driven in nature. TU is not a sub-division of any resource agency and thus free to evaluate all decisions on the criteria of - is this action or policy in line with our mission and does it benifit the native salmonid population in question.

Lee and Phil
Your comments give me the impression that you trivialize this discussion. Since 1971 there have been 137183 fingerling hatchery trout stocked in the headwaters of the East Fork (DNR's numbers). To date electroshockings have only turned up 109 browns or rainbows for a success rate of .00008, one point we can be thankful about. The lack of success itself should have the DNR rethinking this program in the East Fork. Scientific research on stocking over native brook trout indicates the stocked hatchery trout do impact the native brook torut negatively, the second point that should lead the DNR to change their practice. WVCTU should be working in unison to have them stop. An estimated cost of stockings since 1971 is $22,500 or $384 per fish found. Expensive, and in today's fiscal climate the third reason the DNR should end the fingerling stockings in the EFG.
We are speaking of balance here not silliness, simply improving the headwater watersheds of native book trout streams by ending the fingerling hatchery stockings. If you don't like the proposal previously presented to the Council, the Fisheries Management Committee should draft a policy to end the stockings of hatchery fingerlings over native brook trout for consideration.

Dave, I get the feeling that people refuse to listen to anyone else on this discussion.  There is an existing position paper in place that is clear enough.  I do not support the stocking of the East Fork, but I also don't believe that people understand some of the possible impacts of ending stocking, but I will not address that in this post.
My issue is with the proposed statements in this article as follows:
WVCTU and its affiliated chapters will not participate in the introduction of non-native fish into streams or connected watersheds containing native brook trout.
WVCTU and its affiliated chapters will not participate in the introduction of non-native fish into streams or connected watersheds that have hydrological, habitat or historical prospects for the restoration and reintroduction of native brook trout.
WVCTU and its affiliated chapters shall advocate for the adoption of the above policies by governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations and private partners which have policies or projects affecting cold water ecosystems in the state of West Virginia.
So in order to keep my discussion on point, I will once again ask a question.  Do you support the stocking of Shavers Fork C&R?  If TU were to adopt the positions above then we would advocate that WVDNR stop stocking Shavers Fork.  It is very clear.  There is documented research showing the movement in and out of Shavers Fork. 
So you support the stocking of the North Fork C&R at Seneca Rocks?  We would need to advocate against it if we adopted the proposed positions.
TU cannot adopt a policy then pick and choose when to follow it.  See East Fork of the Greenbrier stocking.

Now on to the other issues.
First you would be hard pressed to justify your math.  Fish live for 40 years?
Next, all stocking stops on the East Fork.  A sewage treatment plant is prposed.  The stream is electroshocked in August when it is 90+ degrees.  Lo and behold there are no brook trout present and now there aren't brown trout either.  The stream is no longer eligible for Tier 3 protection and potentially isn't a B2 stream either. 
As a challenge I would ask anyone to list a stream that they believe is not in a watershed connected to a brook trout stream.  There are about 1000 brook trout streams in WV.  Good luck.  I am betting your list is limited to southern WV streams.  Most likely created through the efforts of KVCTU.

Lee:

In this context I assume the word “connected” means that alien trout have free and easy access to water well populated by wild brook trout.  In those situations dumping aliens on top of them is malfeasant in my humble opinion no matter how long it has been done and no matter by how many.  I have inspected many streams in WV that are hydrologically connected but are cut off from wild brook trout populations via a number of mechanisms: dams, impassible falls, acid pollution, warm impoundments filled with predator fish….  I am very much against stocking hatchery brook trout if they have a chance to hybridize with wild ones.  But surely that is better than stocking alien trout.  People should remember that it is possible to raise and stock brook trout.  If the state insists on stocking major streams that are connected to productive wild brook-trout water but have few or no trout for whatever reason, why not stock brook trout?  Introgression between hatchery brookies and wild brookies can be damaging, but the wild genes tend to win out unless huge numbers of domestic genes are dumped on them.  WV has a grievous acid problem from mines and the sky.  Brook trout are far better equipped to deal with acid than any other salmonid because they evolved in acidic conditions.

The question has been asked would TU support stocking C&R area if the overstocking motion had been adopted unchanged as I had written it. The responce is why is the stocking taking place. Assuming that the WVDNR does everything as advocated by TU (the reverse may be true but this is doubtful) and the habitat in these streams has been fully restored then stocking would only be needed to re-establish a site specific exterpated population. Of course TU would support it. Now if the habitat is not restored  and the stocking is purely to provide a recreational fishery, as is currently the case, then we have to ask the question - Is this action in line with the TU mission of Protecting, Reconnecting and Restoring  native salmonid populations?
So , I ask why are the overstockings , conducted by TU, taking place? Are they benifiting the NBT populations or are they benifiting anglers ?
Is WV TU about the resource or about the resource user ?

Shavers Fork is directly connected to brook trout water and brook trout move freely in and out of the main stem.  This is of course almmost soley as a result of the liming efforts by the WVDNR.  Google brook trout, Kyle Hartman and Shavers Fork and you can see the research. 
North Fork C&R is directly connected to Seneca Cr which is a native brook trout stream with a population of rainbows.  Nearly all the tribs of Seneca contain brook trout.  There are multiple brook trout streams that are directly connected to North Fork with no fish passage barriers.  The same with the Elk River, the Williams River, the Cranberry, the Cherry, Dry Fork, Laurel Fork, East and West Forks of the Greenbrier, the South Branch, Gandy Creek, Glady Creek, and just about any other trout stream in WV that holds fish year round.  Eliminate stocking and you eliminate a huge amount of the trout fishing in WV along with the water quality protections.  Recreational fishing is a priority of the majority of members of TU.  We have a long way to go in WV before we can stop stocking.

The current position is that TU should not stock over brook trout.  That is clear enough without painting ourself into a corner.

“Recreational fishing is a priority of the majority of members of TU.”

Yes.  I agree.  But it is not THE PRIORITY.  I am a TU activist, a major TU fundraiser, and  a member of the Coldwater Conservation Fund.  And I can assure you that, with TU, recreational fishing does not come before the conservation and restoration of native salmonids.

Ted I am well aware of TU position as I have been an active member for almost 30 years.  Native species should be a priorty, but so should protecting wild trout.  That is TU's mission, correct?  To protect native and wild trout? 
Once again, I do not fully support stocking the East Fork, but after 40 years of stocking it also not the crisis that it is being portrayed to be.  It is also a selective crisis, in that there are a whole lot of other streams that are being stocked that contain brook trout or are directly connected to brook trout streams with no barriers to fish passage.  Somehow those streams aren't a problem.
Declarations like those proposed above paint WVCTU into a corner.
 

Lee: Yes.  Mission stuff is correct.  No one’s portraying this to be a “crisis,” just bad management.  And no one’s saying there’s not lots of bad management in lots of other streams and states.  In fact, I’ve provided some examples.  Not sure how WVCTU is being “painted into a corner.”

WVCTU would be painted in a corner with the limitations on stocking listed in this post.  If the East Fork stocking were to stop then a lengthy portion of the stream will no longer have an appreciable trout population.  The brook trout will not suddenly rebound below Island campground.  The fish population will instead consist of adult hatchery fish with very few brook trout.  The temperature and pool structure is limiting the fish population. There are large sections will little or no canopy along with significant flood damage.

Lee:

Again, why not stock the section with hatchery brook trout, even if it’s only on a put-and-take basis (as I assume it is with most of the browns anyway)?  Better still, why not take the money used to annually raise all these rubber trout and put it into stream restoration, replant canopy, construct wing dams?

I wouldn't want to put hatchery brook trout in there that weren't raised from native stock from the East Fork.  Habitat work would be ideal, but it is very expensive and it is hard to get much support for those type of activities.

The numbers are what they are they come from the DNR .00008 is a simplification of a failed policy. If 109 brown trout is all that have been found in 137183 stocked that is failure. In forty years there have been four surveys of the EFG, four to find out what the 137183 hatchery trout are doing. The point is clear the DNR has no policy, and no scientific basis for what they are doing on the EFG.
The point is simple why destroy a native brook trout fishery even if it needs help to produce another put and take hatchery stocked fishery that does not have reproducing browns.
Lee your point is taken I am not advocating pulling out the rug, the EFG is where I started as Council Chair I advocated improvement of the native brook trout fisheries fifteen years ago I just focused my advocacy. However, the place we are at is a result of the hatchery being the answer to all habitat problems.
Is it not Nitro that stocks trout in the community swimming pool? Maybe Dunbar it makes no difference it is the large crowd that is attracted. People don't care what you stock, stream pond or swimming pool as long as they can take their limit. Fixing the headwater native brook trout streams will go unnoticed if the DNR stocks more swimming pools.