What's even the point of killing anything (and restocking) if the original fish are doing quite well a little way upstream?
I don't even know if there is a point. There may not be. I'm just saying I'm not against it. (Being kind of flip with the "fine idea" comment, as in, it's no big deal)
(I think) we've had a discussion about game species management before. I've been raised on the notion that stewardship over animal resources is a proactive endeavor that requires direct intervention that benefits both the game species population and the recreational users of the resource. I've enjoyed the benefits of living in a state that takes the notion very seriously, and I support it. So, if someone demonstrates that the events leading to the eradication of a game species from their traditional forage area and introduction to another area happened in a way that was detrimental to the species OR the recreational use of the species, I'm open to proactive solutions. I'm even open to local/state elected officials directing tax dollars under the banner of public good.
My problem with it is as I defined above - the ridiculousness to which the process has devolved. It doesn't have to involve so much hand-wringing; cost so much money; pit people against each other; direct so many resources away from the solutions into the hands of lawyers and bureaucrats. At that point - when the burden of doing anything becomes so egregious - why bother doing anything?
Which is of course, the Leftist goal. Stand in the way of all progress, overload the system, enrich and enlarge the government, and pay the lawyers.