Approximately 24 alien fish species, equivalent to 9 percent of all South African freshwater fish species, were introduced and established into South African waters during the 19th and 20th Centuries (Skelton, 2001). Of the 24 species introduced, the Rainbow trout and the Brown trout have over time become South Africa's most widely spread and used freshwater fish species (Bainbridge, Alletson, Davies, Lax and Mills, 2005). The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, no.10 of 2004 has, however, cast considerable doubt on the future of trout as a food source and a recreational fishing resource in South Africa. More specifically, Section 64 of the Act has the following aims: “(a) to prevent the unauthorized introduction and spread of alien species and invasive species to ecosystems and habitats where they do not naturally occur; (b) to manage and control alien species and invasive species to prevent or minimize harm to the environment and to biodiversity in particular; and (c) to eradicate alien species and invasive species from ecosystems and habitats where they may harm such ecosystems or habitats.” The uncertainty surrounding the future of trout in South Africa is mainly underpinned by aim (c) of Section 64 of the Act. Regarding the eradication of trout and in keeping with aim (c) of Section 64 of the Act, three remarks can be made. First, there exists a paucity of published studies which offer validated proof of the impacts which may be ascribed entirely to the introduction of alien trout in South Africa, since no pre-stocking assessments were conducted (Bainbridge et al., 2005). Second, the elimination of trout is feasible in a few limited closed ecosystems, such as small dams, but is highly impractical and untenable from an environmental and cost perspective where open and established river systems are concerned (Bainbridge et al., x 2005). More specifically, there are no efficient or adequate eradication measures which may be used in wide-ranging open ecosystems, which selectively target alien fish species. Moreover, most, if not all, measures have the potential to cause considerable adverse impacts on indigenous aquafaunal species. Finally, the elimination of trout could undermine the tourism appeal of many upper catchment areas in South Africa. The trout fishing industry is well established and is a source of local and foreign income, as well as a job creator in the South African economy (Bainbridge et al., 2005; Hlatswako, 2000; Rogerson, 2002). In particular, the industry provides a two-tier service: first, in food production at the subsistence as well as commercial levels, and second, as an angling resource. Recreational angling, including fly-fishing for trout, is one of the fastest growing tourism attractions in South Africa. Furthermore, the trout fishing industry is sustained and underpinned by a considerable infrastructure consisting of tackle manufacturers and retailers, tourist operators, professional guides, hotels, lodges and B&Bs. The economic case for the trout fishing industry in South Africa has, however, not been convincingly made. The economic benefit provided by trout and trout fly-fishing is priced directly in the market place by expenditures made by fly-fishers, and indirectly in property values, which provide access to fly-fishing opportunities. The benefit of trout and trout fly-fishing can also be valued through non-market valuation techniques. Non-market valuation is used to calculate values for items that are not traded in markets, such as environmental services. There are several non-market valuation methods available to the researcher, namely those based on revealed preference and those based on stated preference. The former includes the hedonic pricing method and the travel cost method, while the latter includes the contingent valuation method and the choice modelling method. Of the available non-market valuation techniques, the travel cost method is the most suitable method for determining the value of trout and the trout fishing industry because travel cost is often the main expenditure incurred. xi The aim of this study is threefold: first, to value the economic contribution of trout and trout fly-fishing to the Rhodes region, North Eastern Cape; second, to determine the willingness-to-pay for a project that entails the rehabilitation and maintenance of trout streams and rivers in and around Rhodes village so as to increase their trout carrying capacity by 10 percent; third, to determine the willingness-to-pay for a project aimed at eradicating trout from streams and rivers in and around Rhodes village so as to prevent trout from harming the indigenous yellowfish habitat. The first aim was achieved by applying the travel cost method, whereas the second and third aims were achieved by applying the contingent valuation method. The study aimed to provide policy makers with information regarding the value of trout fishing in the Rhodes region, so as to create an awareness of the economic trade-offs associated with alien fish eradication. Through the application of the travel cost method, the consumer surplus per trout fly-fishermen was estimated to be R19 677.69, while the total consumer surplus was estimated to be R13 774 384.40. The median willingness-to-pay for a project to rehabilitate trout habitat was estimated to be R248.95, while the total willingness-to-pay amounted to R199 462.20. The median willingness-to-pay for a project to eradicate alien trout from the Rhodes region rivers and streams was estimated to be R41.18, while the total willingness-to-pay amounted to R28 829.36. This study concludes that trout and trout fly-fishing make a valuable economic contribution to the Rhodes region. The extent of the economic benefit provided by trout and trout fly-fishing services in the Rhodes region should be carefully considered in any stream management project.