Monday, May 18, 2009

Waukesha Trout Streams...Ahh, Who Really Needs 'Em?

Freeman columnist Pete Kennedy touts the long-debated, just-approved $51 million Waukesha Bypass.

Environmental concerns are not high on his list, as he explains away several possible problems with the plan:
On to point 3, environmental concerns: The project needs an environmental study because, among other concerns, Pebble Creek apparently has trout.

I’m all for saving Waukesha County trout streams. But would there be trout if not for DNR stocking?

I hadn’t been able to get a conclusive answer by my deadline. A visit to the DNR Web site informed me that 24,242 brown trout have been stocked in the creek between 2001 and 2008.

If we didn’t stock the creek for two years, would the environmental impact be substantially less? Should we be worried about the impact on pink flamingoes and woolly mammoths as well?



Anonymous said...


We have just added your latest post "Waukesha Trout Streams...Ahh, Who Really Needs 'Em?
" to our Directory of Environment . You can check the inclusion of the post here . We are delighted to invite you to submit all your future posts to the directory for getting a huge base of visitors to your website and gaining a valuable backlink to your site.

Warm Regards Team

Anonymous said...

The DNR since has documented NATURALLY REPRODUCING trout in certain stream in Waukesha, including Pebble Creek. I have seen them first hand as well. Who needs trout streams? The plethora of fishers in the Milwaukee area who continue to travel west and north and feed their dollars to those tourist-industry traps.
In my opinion, it would not only be a smart move environmentally, but economically, if Waukesha put a little more money into their streams for people like me who don't want to have to travel 2 hours to a decent trout stream. Contact local land owners and start marketing...