Yeah, he has some good points, which have been pointed out here many times. I do agree that we stock in too many places. And I also agree that stocked trout fishing is often too artificial for my tastes. I mean, I can take part, but the more natural it seems the more enjoyable it is. The PFBC seems to go the other way, trying to breed bigger and bigger freakish fish, putting them in smaller and easier to access areas, etc.
What he misses is that it wasn't purely fishing pressure, hatchery pollution, and invasive species that did in large brook trout populations. In fact, the former two played almost zero effect. It's urban sprawl, logging & textiles, mine drainage, etc., that are, in the grand scheme, much more damaging. Land has been cleared resulting in siltation and warming of streams, making them unsuitable for wild brook trout.
Those TU habitat projects? umm, yeah, read the above. The original habitat has been degraded beyond recognition. These projects are trying to RESTORE something more similar to the original than what exists today.
Invasive species is a real problem. That said, that ship has sailed. I don't think modern stocking practices are contributing much if any to that problem. As he said himself, the modern stockie is genetically modified and doesn't possess the needed traits to survive in the wild. We're not seeding new populations. And, as a general rule, if say, a wild brookie population exists and you have to stock it, you want to stock bows and browns, NOT BROOKIES, as the former may hold down the brookie population but won't eliminate it or permanently damage it. Crossing the wild population with stocked brookies has the potential to permanently damage the gene pool.
As a general rule, there are a few streams I think we shouldn't stock. But they are exceptions. We stock streams that can't sustain sizable wild trout populations, and we don't stock streams that can.
Ok, now the main point.
If a national "no fishing law" were enacted tomorrow, and every hatchery shut down, and all TU habitat restoration efforts ceased immediately. This would not result in an increase in the # of streams which harbor native brook trout. Long term, it'd probably lead to a reduction as far less priority would be put on preserving watersheds. Who cares if they log the headwaters, as long as the stream still looks pretty by my house, right? But if you fish that stream, then you do care.
Which means the article brings up some valid food for thought but the premise is severely misguided. He's leaving his rod at home? His loss, as he wasn't gonna hurt anything. Regarding habitat restoration and like, he's attacking the good guys. And while I may agree on the ridiculousness of stocked trout "sportsmanship", I'm not going to use it as an excuse why native brook trout can't re-take streams that are simply too warm, silty, or polluted to hold native brook trout. And yes, brown trout are one reason brookies can't retake some streams, but it's WILD brown trout populations seeded in the 1920's, not the modern ones the PFBC is stocking.