|
|
"Tom Nakashima" wrote in message ... "Wolfgang" wrote in message ... "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ... Tom Nakashima wrote: where I'll be packing in, I'll be fishing for natural brookies. ... Naturally reproducing, I'll give you, but brook trout are non-natives, some say trash fish, in the Sierras. Brookies aren't native to the Sierras?!! :( Well......dang. Wolfgang who, till now, had never given much credence to the old saw that one learns something every day. Yes, you are correct Wolfgang, I am?! and what I should have said is after their initial stock back in 1928-1938 (and correct me if those dates are off), the brook trout where I'll be fishing are natural reproducers. I thought you said what you meant just fine. Um......well, that is, assuming you meant what you said. As far as I could tell, Kennie was the only one here having trouble understaning it. However, I'm not about to argue with both of you. Trash fish? I suppose if you want to call them that. Thanks, but I don't think that I do. I never have before.......can't see any reason to start now. When I first caught them, I had mistaken them for the golden trout, because of their reddish/golden color, but should have known because of the lower altitude. I've never seen a golden trout live and in person, as it were. The photos I've seen didn't look much like brookies. But then, I've seen a lot of brookies that didn't look much like brookies. I do like the taste of the pink meat, very pleasant. Hm.......nope, not gonna touch it......wouldn't be prudent. Wolfgang |
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ... Tom Nakashima wrote: Yes, you are correct Wolfgang, and what I should have said is after their initial stock back in 1928-1938 (and correct me if those dates are off), the brook trout where I'll be fishing are natural reproducers. Trash fish? I suppose if you want to call them that. When I first caught them, I had mistaken them for the golden trout, because of their reddish/golden color, but should have known because of the lower altitude. I do like the taste of the pink meat, very pleasant. Some say the best way to preserve native fish is to remove the exotics. In the Smokies the situation is reversed, that is the brookies are native and rainbows are exotics or trash fish. Huh? Rainbows aren't native to the southern Appalachians?!! :( Well......dang. Wolfgang why wasn't i informed? |
Wolfgang wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote: Some say the best way to preserve native fish is to remove the exotics. In the Smokies the situation is reversed, that is the brookies are native and rainbows are exotics or trash fish. Huh? Rainbows aren't native to the southern Appalachians?!! :( Well......dang. Wolfgang why wasn't i informed? No Wolfie, rainbows are not native to southern Appalachia. As for being informed, that's pretty much a self-help thing. One of the successes in restoring native brookies to the Smokies was the Sam's Creek project. The stream was poisoned with antimycin to get rid of all the browns and rainbows then when the poison washed out of the system brookies were released. It worked so well the Park Service is considering similar restoration efforts in Yellowstone where non-native brookies have displaced native cutts. -- Ken Fortenberry |
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message m... Wolfgang wrote: "Ken Fortenberry" wrote: Some say the best way to preserve native fish is to remove the exotics. In the Smokies the situation is reversed, that is the brookies are native and rainbows are exotics or trash fish. Huh? Rainbows aren't native to the southern Appalachians?!! :( Well......dang. Wolfgang why wasn't i informed? No Wolfie, rainbows are not native to southern Appalachia. As for being informed, that's pretty much a self-help thing. One of the successes in restoring native brookies to the Smokies was the Sam's Creek project. The stream was poisoned with antimycin to get rid of all the browns and rainbows then when the poison washed out of the system brookies were released. It worked so well the Park Service is considering similar restoration efforts in Yellowstone where non-native brookies have displaced native cutts. Well......gosh. Wolfgang who is having a hard time understanding why they'd want to poison the brookies in yellowstone and then put 'em back. :( |
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
One of the successes in restoring native brookies to the Smokies was the Sam's Creek project. The stream was poisoned with antimycin to get rid of all the browns and rainbows then when the poison washed out of the system brookies were released. It worked so well the Park Service is considering similar restoration efforts in Yellowstone where non-native brookies have displaced native cutts. Just finished rereading M.R. Montgomery's wonderful Many Rivers to Cross. What a depressing record of anti-cutthroat 'ethnic' cleansing there has been in the West. You'd have to poison not just the introduced brookies, but in many places tons of browns and rainbows as well. (And on the BLM and USFS land, it would help scads to poison all the effing cows.....) |
JR wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: One of the successes in restoring native brookies to the Smokies was the Sam's Creek project. The stream was poisoned with antimycin to get rid of all the browns and rainbows then when the poison washed out of the system brookies were released. It worked so well the Park Service is considering similar restoration efforts in Yellowstone where non-native brookies have displaced native cutts. Just finished rereading M.R. Montgomery's wonderful Many Rivers to Cross. What a depressing record of anti-cutthroat 'ethnic' cleansing there has been in the West. You'd have to poison not just the introduced brookies, but in many places tons of browns and rainbows as well. (And on the BLM and USFS land, it would help scads to poison all the effing cows.....) The problem in Yellowstone is finding an impassable barrier. The Sam's Creek reintroduction worked so well because there was a waterfall the browns and rainbows couldn't negotiate. So upstream of the waterfall it's all native brookies now. Kinda like Snowbird in Graham County. They'd love to kill off all the brookies and browns in Yellowstone but without an impassable barrier it won't work, the exotics would just repopulate themselves. -- Ken Fortenberry |
"Wolfgang" wrote in message ... I've never seen a golden trout live and in person, as it were. The photos I've seen didn't look much like brookies. But then, I've seen a lot of brookies that didn't look much like brookies. Wolfgang I have never seen the golden trout in person either, only pictures and unfortunately in Bishop CA. where a tackle shop had a few mounted on the wall. I found a link of the Sierra Nevada Golden and Brook trout, you can see some similarities between the two and how easily they can be mistaken. http://www.sierrapacktrip.com/flora_fauna.html -tom |
"Tom Nakashima" wrote in message ... ...I found a link of the Sierra Nevada Golden and Brook trout, you can see some similarities between the two and how easily they can be mistaken. http://www.sierrapacktrip.com/flora_fauna.html -tom They do look somewhat similar in those illustrations......more so than in others I've seen (most of which, till now, were in older books). I just did a Google search and came up with this: http://www.tucalifornia.org/cgtic/index.htm# The similarities between Salvelinus fontinalis and the Salmo agua-bonita Jordan shown here are noteworthy. Given normal variation, they could indeed be hard to tell apart at a glance in the field. Interestingly, clicking the link to the California Golden Trout takes you to: http://www.tucalifornia.org/cgtic/CGTbasics.htm where the illustration of the Oncorhynchus aguabonita aguabonita at the top of the page suggests that confusion with a brookie would be extremely unlikely. Further down the page, the illustrations of both the California and Little Kern (listed on yet another page as Oncorhynchus aguabonita whitei) golden trout once again look a bit more like a brookie. However, all of these fish (including the specimen at the site you directed us to) show large dark spots along the flanks which in brookies we would call "parr marks" and which would indicate that they are juveniles. Given that there is no suggestion on any of these pages that the illustrations are of juveniles, I assume that they are all adults. Those dark spots, along with other diagnostic features (the brookies' vermiculate dorsal markings, for example) should help to make identification easier. Any idea why they call goldens "Salmo" on one page and "Oncorhynchus" on succeeding pages? Wolfgang |
|
"Wolfgang" wrote in message ... "Tom Nakashima" wrote in message ... ...I found a link of the Sierra Nevada Golden and Brook trout, you can see some similarities between the two and how easily they can be mistaken. http://www.sierrapacktrip.com/flora_fauna.html -tom They do look somewhat similar in those illustrations......more so than in others I've seen (most of which, till now, were in older books). I just did a Google search and came up with this: http://www.tucalifornia.org/cgtic/index.htm# The similarities between Salvelinus fontinalis and the Salmo agua-bonita Jordan shown here are noteworthy. Given normal variation, they could indeed be hard to tell apart at a glance in the field. Interestingly, clicking the link to the California Golden Trout takes you to: http://www.tucalifornia.org/cgtic/CGTbasics.htm where the illustration of the Oncorhynchus aguabonita aguabonita at the top of the page suggests that confusion with a brookie would be extremely unlikely. Further down the page, the illustrations of both the California and Little Kern (listed on yet another page as Oncorhynchus aguabonita whitei) golden trout once again look a bit more like a brookie. However, all of these fish (including the specimen at the site you directed us to) show large dark spots along the flanks which in brookies we would call "parr marks" and which would indicate that they are juveniles. Given that there is no suggestion on any of these pages that the illustrations are of juveniles, I assume that they are all adults. Those dark spots, along with other diagnostic features (the brookies' vermiculate dorsal markings, for example) should help to make identification easier. Any idea why they call goldens "Salmo" on one page and "Oncorhynchus" on succeeding pages? Wolfgang Not sure why the Golden Trout are called Salmo/Oncorhynchus, not up to speed on my species description, and learning as I go. I just learned that the Goldens are native to the Little Kern River in California. I believe this make them the only species of fish that are native to California....hence the name; The Golden Trout. -tom |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter