Central Sands Brook trout extinction

At WCC meeting I was at, A DNR fishery manager told us that within 50 years brook trout would be extinct in the central sands region. The warming planet and the shallow aquifer would make streams too warm for brook trout. If there will be no brook trout, will the DNR replace the wild population with hatchery browns ? If there are no trout in a county, like Adams, what impact will there be on trout stamp revenue ? What impact will there be on mink and otter and kingfisher populations ?? Any thoughts ?? Trouter

Trouter: I think the trout in the Central Sands will be gone long before then. I used to do a lot of brook trout fishing in Adams County in the 1980's and 1990's. Not anymore. The last few times I tried in June and August I was appalled at the lack of water flow in some of my old haunts. Few pools, no depth and almost no current. Where is the water? I think like Fish lake in Hancock, the high capacity wells are destroying the trout streams and some of the lakes in this area of the state. My trout fishing has now moved on to other trout streams. Too bad as I still have family in Adams county.

I'm not an expert, but all I know is I try to treat the waters I fish and trout I catch with utmost respect. That said, I was out yesterday in Adams County on a stream I've never fished before. Results were 8 brookies caught and released. Now, the biggest one was about 8 inches, but all were very lively and in good shape. Global warming? Not an expert, but I am a student of weather history. The facts that I've studied show a cyclical change in weather since charts started tracking fluctuations. Does man contribute to these fluctuations? I'm willing to accept that there is a minor impact, but I'm just not convinced all rests in the hands of man.

In case anyone missed it, the high capacity well changes passed, and became law. Basically when the central sands really start to experience sustained low ground water levels the DNR doesn't have any power to stop high capacity extractions now. Correction/update: the adsembly, and the senate passed their own versions of the well bill. This is on hold until the assembly reconvenes in January 2017.

Scenario 1) Global warming is natural, and has been happening for 10,000 to 14,000 years since the Wisconsin Glacier began retreating off of North America. Scenario 2) Global warming is man made due to industrialization that is happening mostly overseas by the roughly 6 billion other humans in the world. Scenario 3) Ignore global warming; focus on high capacity wells that are draining the central sands. If all the trout fishermen in Wisconsin focused on one of these scenarios; which one could we push, and actually affect change?

"The rate of change is unprecedented" It is not. See woodfortrees.org for yourself. You will find the rate of warming from 1910-1940 is statically not different from what we are seeing now. The rate of change of globull warming BS is the only unprecedented change occurring. Don't forget the billions of dollars being wasted on supercomputer modeling that has miserably failed up to this point in time to predict the current trend, let alone 100 years from now. That being said, I am encouraged knowing that efforts to improve stream flow in the Driftless trout waters has led to a 10F temperature reduction on average since efforts began in the 1950-60s(See "Exploring Wisconsin Trout Streams The Anglers Guide). Rumor has it there are some decent brook waters in that region. If climate change is impacting Central Sands brook trout, one would suspect the impact would be similar to the Driftless brookies. The *!$*!%!@ River and *!*&#$ Creek tributaries are still pretty decent. The Central Sands trout population are most likely related to primarily man made agricultural activities. It's hard to do grow stuff like brook trout and cranberries in the same time and space.

The Central Sands area is even more susceptible to this happening due to more than climate change. 1 We have the cranberry bogs which permanently destroy grasslands and see little regulatory oversight and can tap into public waters for private use. 2 We have CAFO'S, which seem to be nearly unregulated with putting in hi cap wells which have already been proven to bring the Little Plover River to nearly a trickle. It doesn't take anyone with even a college degree to see damage being done in the last 15-20 years but no one in power seems to too interested in doing anything about it. Tim

The politics of the biologist are irrelevant. Climate chang is real. And we have to face the problem and not explain it away by saying that this is nothing new. The rate of change is unprecedented. And it could lead to mass extinction. The world is going to have to change or face real disaster.

Extirpation of various species due to changes in the local climatic conditions has been happening for a long time. Whether this is anthropogenic warming, part of a natural cycle, or a combination of the two it is still a sad thing to see a native species disappear from a region.

I'm sure everyone has heard we are currently in one of the worst EL nino weather years to date. Global warming is real even if we don't want to face the facts. We CAN do something about it! I would like to see everyone's kids able to enjoy catching a beautiful brook trout in our state just like I did. I think we are doomed to lose brook trout forever in our state when I see all the garbage left behind by other fisherman. PPL just don't care.

35 years ago his predecessor would have told you the brook trout were going to be extinct because of the ice age that was eminent. I wouldn't doubt that water quantity and quality may have an impact but climate changes have been happening since the earth had an atmosphere. It wasn't all that long ago WI was under a mile thick glacier.

Things are changing and I don't think the future for trout is all that good. The DNR can get off the wall but right now I say don't shoot the messenger because you don't like the message.