|
|
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
jeff wrote: imo, with regard to almost all things involving nature and nature's animals or vegetation, anything that attracts and encourages masses of human beings to congregate for the purpose of engaging in a defined activity that affects the natural world on a specific, limited bit of geography is simply a prescription for the destruction and ruin of that nature as well as the activity and geography. (unless, of course, we can convince all of humanity except some of us on this newsgroup and a few selected others, to move to new york city and mexico city and moscow and beijing and engage in holding their breath for 2 hours). planting hatchery fish to save a stream and its semi-wild or stream-born "heritage" trout just doesn't seem right. fix the habitat and the food sources, make it c&r only, and the fish will flourish. some reasonable percentage of c&r fish reproduce; zero percentage of c&k fish reproduce. that's my anecdotal experience and my belief based on indisputable logic and science. Hmph! Bottom posting ****tard. That said, I humbly beg to disagree. When all is said and done, Timmy (dumbass) is, of course, absolutely right. Across the length and breadth of this vast an once bountiful continent we have, through greed, hubris and arrogance, with one shining exception, destroyed beyond any reasonable hope of redemption and irrevocably doomed the salmonids, once so plentiful that they prompted early explorers and settlers to wax rapturous about their stupefying numbers to such a degree that the modern reader can only suppose they were all busy huffing gasoline or something. The only hope, and it is a slim one given the closed minded intransigence of yer average catch and release zombie, is for all of us to go to Colorado and kill fish. Yeah, like THAT'S gonna happen! :( i like john gierach's statement that "fishing is engrossing because it's so lovely...we try to be logical, but there's no way around it - we end up believing in whatever we think is beautiful, whether we can prove it makes sense or not." More and more, the appeal of the whole exercise rests in the happy conjunction of two factors......the sheer beauty of it, and the fact that it makes no sense at all. jeff Thank you. :) you're wecome, jeff By the way, that list of dead waters I provide earlier in the day in another thread......um, or maybe it was this one......well, whatever.....was woefully incomplete. I was looking at DeLorme's "Street Atlas"......their computer maps. Scanning the hardcopy atlas this evening, I find at least twice as many named streams within a thirty mile radius of the airport. One of them, Silver Lead Creek (which soon morphs into the west branch of the Chocolay) is so close to the aiport entrance that.....um......well, let's just say that when the captain announces the approach it's time to lace up your wading boots and string up the rod. :) Wolfgang and "big trout" lake is about a mile further. |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Wolfgang wrote:
jeff wrote: imo, with regard to almost all things involving nature and nature's animals or vegetation, anything that attracts and encourages masses of human beings to congregate for the purpose of engaging in a defined activity that affects the natural world on a specific, limited bit of geography is simply a prescription for the destruction and ruin of that nature as well as the activity and geography. (unless, of course, we can convince all of humanity except some of us on this newsgroup and a few selected others, to move to new york city and mexico city and moscow and beijing and engage in holding their breath for 2 hours). planting hatchery fish to save a stream and its semi-wild or stream-born "heritage" trout just doesn't seem right. fix the habitat and the food sources, make it c&r only, and the fish will flourish. some reasonable percentage of c&r fish reproduce; zero percentage of c&k fish reproduce. that's my anecdotal experience and my belief based on indisputable logic and science. Hmph! Bottom posting ****tard. hey...i've freely and honestly acknowledged my ****tardism. the top-posting and bottom-posting and all the in-between posting in this carnivale are but minor characteristics of the infirmity. That said, I humbly beg to disagree. i kinda expected that...g...and always look forward to it. When all is said and done, Timmy is, of course, absolutely right. Across the length and breadth of this vast and once bountiful continent we have, through greed, hubris and arrogance, with one shining exception, destroyed beyond any reasonable hope of redemption and irrevocably doomed the salmonids, once so plentiful that they prompted early explorers and settlers to wax rapturous about their stupefying numbers to such a degree that the modern reader can only suppose they were all busy huffing gasoline or something. shining exception? where are the bright lights shining and how do we turn them off before the "if you build it they will come" folks discover they overlooked the place? The only hope, and it is a slim one given the closed minded intransigence of yer average catch and release zombie, is for all of us to go to Colorado and kill fish. Yeah, like THAT'S gonna happen! :( i like john gierach's statement that "fishing is engrossing because it's so lovely...we try to be logical, but there's no way around it - we end up believing in whatever we think is beautiful, whether we can prove it makes sense or not." More and more, the appeal of the whole exercise rests in the happy conjunction of two factors......the sheer beauty of it, and the fact that it makes no sense at all. By the way, that list of dead waters I provide earlier in the day in another thread......um, or maybe it was this one......well, whatever.....was woefully incomplete. I was looking at DeLorme's "Street Atlas"......their computer maps. Scanning the hardcopy atlas this evening, I find at least twice as many named streams within a thirty mile radius of the airport. One of them, Silver Lead Creek (which soon morphs into the west branch of the Chocolay) is so close to the aiport entrance that.....um......well, let's just say that when the captain announces the approach it's time to lace up your wading boots and string up the rod. :) Wolfgang and "big trout" lake is about a mile further. g i believe the unique and heretofore unheard of airline that flies between detroit and marquette might allow me to open a window...you reckon i can troll a streamer through one of the lakes or streams on landing approach? perhaps i'll gear up in detroit and step off "mutant airlines" in marquette ready to go! unless, of course, i have been required to over medicate in order to repel adequately the flight anxieties and soul weasels. i just realized the full import of frank's statement that he'll be on the same flight. yikes!! jeff the striped bass...we call them "rock"...have made a remarkable comeback in nc waters through a catch & release,single hook/barbless hook/slot limits during a short c&k season in a defined area, & improved habitat (remove dams, regulate water quality more strictly) policy. |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
George Adams wrote: wrote: George Adams wrote: Stan Gula wrote: daytripper wrote: http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376 And Tim Walker retorted: Hi Daytripper, I know that Willi, Jon, Wayno, Bill Grey, Walt, Op and many more, probably scores of people lurking in the wings, would love to discuss this topic. Not sure why they haven't weighed in but I can certainly understand why people would be hestitant to. snipped Could it be ..... SATAN? Well, it's not Wolfgang, because most people who have a mind to can avoid getting into endless ****ing contests with him. Really. Watch, I'll do it. For 'tripper, GM, George Adams, TimJ and other locally interested people... The number of stream systems in New England that are supporting wild reproducing fish is so small, that we need to make special efforts to protect them. I support the ongoing efforts to improve habitat on the VT section of the Battenkill by enhancing the streamside vegetation. It's unfortunate that the Battenkill is no longer viable for brookies (the feeder streams are, and I'm sure the main river is used as a connection for the small streams during runoff) - like most New England streams the loss of cover on the main river and some of the feeder streams, and loss of groundwater due to development, we can't expect the water quality or temperature to improve enough to allow the brookies to return to the main river, although I would support that as an ultimate goal for any stream in the northeast. As it is, the brown trout are doing well, even in light of the recent declines. Reproduction in the feeders is good. We can encourage the river's recovery by providing more shade and more nutrient load from vegetation. I think we have the science to know what to do to improve the habitat and let the population come back on it's own. Stocking rainbows, What Stan said. Unlike some of the people 'discussing' the fate of the Battenkill, I along with others in the Massachusetts Mafia have actually fished it. I fished it back in the late sixties and early seventies when it was one of the best, if not the best wild trout stream in the east. I also fished it in the late nineties when it was in serious decline. I have more recently read and heard reports from people I trust, that indicate the combination of C&R and habitat improvement is bearing fruit. I understand that there was a very good trico hatch on Saturday, with fish rising in good numbers. One of the problems in the last two decades has been a 'cleanup' of the stream. The productive "sweepers" that provide cover for fish and wood fiber for insects to feed on, have been removed because they annoy non fishing users of the river. There has also been bank erosion, and loss of cover along the banks. There was a movement toward C&R in the early seventies, and a comprehensive stream study was done that showed the river could maintain a good population of wild fish, and still allow harvesting within reasonable limits. If the restoration effort is continued, it would seem that, in the future, fish could be harvested, without the need to stock "catchables". If the Battenkill were the only stream in the area, I could see some sense in satisfying the locals by stocking it, but there are several other streams in the area already managed for put and take. If, in the end, it is stocked, there should be a regulation in place that all rainbows caught must be kept. So in answer to the original post.....no, the Battekill should not be stocked. As Stan said, fire away. Howdy George, Great, thoughtful answer. Question: In your opinion, what 'bad' would happen if these rainbow were stocked? Thanks, Halfordian Golfer Guilt replaced the creel Tim, Go to www.tuswvt.org. Click on "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt". I found the articles by Richard Vincent and Robert Bachman to be quite interesting. George Howdy George, There is a lot of great reading there, to be very sure. I'm not sure which points you wanted me to key on specifically, but here's my take. First, please know that I'm always leary when a site like this goes so far out of their way to prove a specific point. Especially when Trout Unlimited is involved. I'm like "uh oh" what are they trying to sell me? In this case, I was first drawn to the very successful Wyoming comprehensive management strategy, which is something I'm very familiar with. The second case was a very interesting article: Competition between Wild Brown Trout and Hatchery Greenback Cutthroat Trout of Largely Wild Parentage This was fascinating as it reminded me what tremendous predators the brown trout were. What did George G call them? The "Northern Pike of the trouts" or something? The article said: "brown trout were involved in more inter- and intraspecific agonistic events, initiated 92% of observed attacks, and displaced the greenback cutthroat trout from energetically profitable sites in pools and near food sources.This finding supports the policy of eradicating brown trout (and other nonindigenous fishes) from streams managed to preserve or restore greenback and other subspecies of cutthroat trout." This made me wonder about the issues with brown trout on indiginous brook trout populations, a study I found glaringly missing from what is purported to be a scientific site claiming conclusions "beyond a reasonable doubt" So, I researched this a little on my own and found many, many scientific reviews suggesting that the brown trout has, basically, been at least partly causul for the ruination of the eastern seaboard brook trout. From: http://www.aginfo.psu.edu/News/july04/trout.html Which states: "In his study, Tzilkowski, a long-time trout fisherman, is focusing on brown trout because rainbow trout rarely establish breeding populations. Brown trout, on the other hand, spawn in Pennsylvania streams and wild populations are common. It is not unusual for wild browns and brook trout to coexist in the same headwater stream. The wild brook trout likely have been there for thousands of years; the wild browns are descendants of stocked fish that were able to survive and reproduce. "Brown trout get bigger and live longer than brookies," says Tzilkowski, who has a master's degree in ecology from Penn State. "When browns get bigger, say 12 inches or so, they switch their diet to fish. They can eat a lot of brook trout." Wow did you get that? The brown trout "can eat a lot of brook trout" while the rainbow trout "rarely even establish breeding populations". George, I'm not sure what you wanted me to see in the TU page, but I am came away with little doubt that something really 'fishy' is going on over there. I am also convinced utterly that stocking the rainbows will create good fishing opportunities and not upset the teacart in the least. What I do not understand is why anyone claiming to be a "conservationist" would not kill every brown trout he caught in that river. Having pure C&R on the largest threat to the indiginous brook trout and then and to complain about stocking the rainbow as a threat to that predator is a very, very confused and distorted view on the problem. What the site did convince me of was that this was fairly suggestive of class warfare and flyfishing elitism. I say this because none of the evidence suggests anything different. I can't believe "Trout Unlimited" endorses species elitism (the brown trout) over promotion of conservation and restoration (the brook trout). Actually, that's not true. From an organization that promotes trout fishing competition I find it easy to believe. I think this is almost exactly what John Gierach points out in his own falling out with TU in his book "Sex, Death and Flyfishing" short story "Trout Wars". Your pal, Halfordian Golfer Guilt replaced the creel |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
daytripper wrote: http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376 Discuss. Absolutely stock the rainbows. It's the brown trout that anyone claiming to care about this issue should be worried about. Nobody responded to the research of August 23rd but a snippet of this (below) is very, very compelling. "brown trout were involved in more inter- and intraspecific agonistic events, initiated 92% of observed attacks, and displaced the greenback cutthroat trout from energetically profitable sites in pools and near food sources.This finding supports the policy of eradicating brown trout (and other nonindigenous fishes) from streams managed to preserve or restore greenback and other subspecies of cutthroat trout." Your pal, TBone |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
wrote in news:1156442966.081828.194450
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: daytripper wrote: http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376 Discuss. Absolutely stock the rainbows. It's the brown trout that anyone claiming to care about this issue should be worried about. Nobody responded to the research of August 23rd but a snippet of this (below) is very, very compelling. "brown trout were involved in more inter- and intraspecific agonistic events, initiated 92% of observed attacks, and displaced the greenback cutthroat trout from energetically profitable sites in pools and near food sources.This finding supports the policy of eradicating brown trout (and other nonindigenous fishes) from streams managed to preserve or restore greenback and other subspecies of cutthroat trout." Your pal, TBone In some ways, it might be more harmful to stock sterile rainbows than intact ones. If the rainbows displace the browns, then die, there's no more fish. If rainbows can reproduce, then at least there would be a real competition for the resource. Given a generation of fish, the rainbows would be every bit as "wild" as the brownies in there right now, and, in fact, every bit as "native". It's not like we're talking about displacing brookies. Push comes to shove, I still think that 1,000 sterile fish is next to nothing for that watershed. They'll be placed where people can get at them. They'll be easy picking, and 95% of them will likely be removed within days of their planting. -- Scott Reverse name to reply (Feeling rather existential today) |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Scott Seidman wrote: wrote in news:1156442966.081828.194450 @h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: daytripper wrote: http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376 Discuss. Absolutely stock the rainbows. It's the brown trout that anyone claiming to care about this issue should be worried about. Nobody responded to the research of August 23rd but a snippet of this (below) is very, very compelling. "brown trout were involved in more inter- and intraspecific agonistic events, initiated 92% of observed attacks, and displaced the greenback cutthroat trout from energetically profitable sites in pools and near food sources.This finding supports the policy of eradicating brown trout (and other nonindigenous fishes) from streams managed to preserve or restore greenback and other subspecies of cutthroat trout." Your pal, TBone In some ways, it might be more harmful to stock sterile rainbows than intact ones. If the rainbows displace the browns, then die, there's no more fish. If rainbows can reproduce, then at least there would be a real competition for the resource. Given a generation of fish, the rainbows would be every bit as "wild" as the brownies in there right now, and, in fact, every bit as "native". It's not like we're talking about displacing brookies. Push comes to shove, I still think that 1,000 sterile fish is next to nothing for that watershed. They'll be placed where people can get at them. They'll be easy picking, and 95% of them will likely be removed within days of their planting. -- Scott Reverse name to reply (Feeling rather existential today) From a biological perspective this is absolutely right. Moreover from the same Aug23rd article. "In his study, Tzilkowski, a long-time trout fisherman, is focusing on brown trout because rainbow trout rarely establish breeding populations. Brown trout, on the other hand, spawn in Pennsylvania streams and wild populations are common. It is not unusual for wild browns and brook trout to coexist in the same headwater stream. The wild brook trout likely have been there for thousands of years; the wild browns are descendants of stocked fish that were able to survive and reproduce. Fact is, the browns are for more serious of threat to the natural biology of the Battenkill. This is just plain old science. "Brown trout eat a lot of brook trout" Is it possible...is it possible that the brook trout would be thriving if it weren't for the brown trout? Then you see this... http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...plate=printart --------------------------- "The 'Kill has been managed exclusively for wild brook and brown trout since the mid-1970s when the last hatchery truck paid a visit to the banks of the storied river. Now our fisheries biologists are recommending the river get a dose of rainbow trout -- 1,000 of them, to be precise -- just to give those anglers who are bellyaching about the poor fishing on the Battenkill something to hook and cook. You can't make this stuff up." ----------------------------- I agree. The irony is absolutely sublime. Stock the rainbows, but don't stop with triploids. Maybe they'll establish a wild trout population and in 30 years nobody will give a rip about the browns. Halfordian Golfer A cash flow runs through it |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
wrote:
[snip of same old tired stuff] Is it possible...is it possible that the brook trout would be thriving if it weren't for the brown trout? Then you see this... http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...plate=printart --------------------------- "The 'Kill has been managed exclusively for wild brook and brown trout since the mid-1970s when the last hatchery truck paid a visit to the banks of the storied river. Now our fisheries biologists are recommending the river get a dose of rainbow trout -- 1,000 of them, to be precise -- just to give those anglers who are bellyaching about the poor fishing on the Battenkill something to hook and cook. You can't make this stuff up." ----------------------------- I agree. The irony is absolutely sublime. Stock the rainbows, but don't stop with triploids. Maybe they'll establish a wild trout population and in 30 years nobody will give a rip about the browns. So because it's possible they made a mistake in stocking browns, you think they should compound that mistake by stocking another non-native species. Talk about yer irony. Chuck Vance |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Conan The Librarian wrote in
: So because it's possible they made a mistake in stocking browns, you think they should compound that mistake by stocking another non-native species. Talk about yer irony. Chuck Vance I don't seem to be drawing much criticism for saying much the same thing, so I'll just keep going. I think Vermont has come up with a very interesting way to try to keep the meat fishermen happy while trying to protect a wild population. I'd venture that its worth a shot, so long as the mechanisms are in place to figure out relatively quickly that its not working out, and kill the program. A thousand fish aren't a heck of a lot for a resource that size. They'll likely be stocked AWAY from the good cover, and be pulled out of the water almost as soon as they're put in. In fact, the die hards for wild management would probably find it easier-- and maybe more fun -- to organize an event to MAKE SURE these fish are pulled out quickly than to try to keep it from happening. Personally, even if I wanted to keep it from happening, I'd still take the approach of making sure the stops are in place, and then when it became perfectly clear that Vermont doesn't have the resources to make sure the program isn't causing damage, you'll have very compelling ammo to kill the program before it starts. You'll garner much more support this way, as you'll sound a whole bunch more reasonable. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Scott Seidman wrote:
Conan The Librarian wrote in : So because it's possible they made a mistake in stocking browns, you think they should compound that mistake by stocking another non-native species. Talk about yer irony. I don't seem to be drawing much criticism for saying much the same thing, so I'll just keep going. I think Vermont has come up with a very interesting way to try to keep the meat fishermen happy while trying to protect a wild population. I'd venture that its worth a shot, so long as the mechanisms are in place to figure out relatively quickly that its not working out, and kill the program. So are you in favor of Tim's last suggestion that they stock fish capable of reproducing? A thousand fish aren't a heck of a lot for a resource that size. They'll likely be stocked AWAY from the good cover, and be pulled out of the water almost as soon as they're put in. In fact, the die hards for wild management would probably find it easier-- and maybe more fun -- to organize an event to MAKE SURE these fish are pulled out quickly than to try to keep it from happening. Personally, even if I wanted to keep it from happening, I'd still take the approach of making sure the stops are in place, and then when it became perfectly clear that Vermont doesn't have the resources to make sure the program isn't causing damage, you'll have very compelling ammo to kill the program before it starts. You'll garner much more support this way, as you'll sound a whole bunch more reasonable. Your approach makes sense. My main beef with Tim was his suggestion that this program would bring increased fishing pressure but that somehow increased fishing pressure would be a good thing for the native fish. Chuck Vance |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Conan The Librarian wrote in news:ecmuij$das6$1
@news.swt.edu: So are you in favor of Tim's last suggestion that they stock fish capable of reproducing? Just read the post that generated Tim's response. I guess you could say that at some level, I feel that the bucket biology has already taken place, and that if the state decides that they want to dump in fertile rainbow trout and see what happens, it wouldn't be all that huge of a tragedy. The "wild" trout that result within a few seasons would be every bit as "native" as the brown trout in there right now. It's somewhat disingenuous to make believe that the Battenkill fishery is pure in any sense of the word. Now, if the state decided that it wanted to put resources into restoring the brook trout population, that would be a different story. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Scott Seidman wrote:
Conan The Librarian wrote in news:ecmuij$das6$1 @news.swt.edu: So are you in favor of Tim's last suggestion that they stock fish capable of reproducing? Just read the post that generated Tim's response. I guess you could say that at some level, I feel that the bucket biology has already taken place, and that if the state decides that they want to dump in fertile rainbow trout and see what happens, it wouldn't be all that huge of a tragedy. The "wild" trout that result within a few seasons would be every bit as "native" as the brown trout in there right now. It's somewhat disingenuous to make believe that the Battenkill fishery is pure in any sense of the word. I'm not saying it's pure, but it doesn't make sense to me to say, "Well, we made a mistake stocking those browns, so let's add another non-native species to compound the situation while we're at it." Chuck Vance |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Conan The Librarian wrote in
: Scott Seidman wrote: Conan The Librarian wrote in news:ecmuij$das6$1 @news.swt.edu: So are you in favor of Tim's last suggestion that they stock fish capable of reproducing? Just read the post that generated Tim's response. I guess you could say that at some level, I feel that the bucket biology has already taken place, and that if the state decides that they want to dump in fertile rainbow trout and see what happens, it wouldn't be all that huge of a tragedy. The "wild" trout that result within a few seasons would be every bit as "native" as the brown trout in there right now. It's somewhat disingenuous to make believe that the Battenkill fishery is pure in any sense of the word. I'm not saying it's pure, but it doesn't make sense to me to say, "Well, we made a mistake stocking those browns, so let's add another non-native species to compound the situation while we're at it." Chuck Vance OK, I can see that as a legitimate argument. Learning from history, stocking practices should be sensitive to the introduction of new non- natives, and not take a step in the wrong direction. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Conan The Librarian wrote: Scott Seidman wrote: Conan The Librarian wrote in : So because it's possible they made a mistake in stocking browns, you think they should compound that mistake by stocking another non-native species. Talk about yer irony. I don't seem to be drawing much criticism for saying much the same thing, so I'll just keep going. I think Vermont has come up with a very interesting way to try to keep the meat fishermen happy while trying to protect a wild population. I'd venture that its worth a shot, so long as the mechanisms are in place to figure out relatively quickly that its not working out, and kill the program. So are you in favor of Tim's last suggestion that they stock fish capable of reproducing? A thousand fish aren't a heck of a lot for a resource that size. They'll likely be stocked AWAY from the good cover, and be pulled out of the water almost as soon as they're put in. In fact, the die hards for wild management would probably find it easier-- and maybe more fun -- to organize an event to MAKE SURE these fish are pulled out quickly than to try to keep it from happening. Personally, even if I wanted to keep it from happening, I'd still take the approach of making sure the stops are in place, and then when it became perfectly clear that Vermont doesn't have the resources to make sure the program isn't causing damage, you'll have very compelling ammo to kill the program before it starts. You'll garner much more support this way, as you'll sound a whole bunch more reasonable. Your approach makes sense. My main beef with Tim was his suggestion that this program would bring increased fishing pressure but that somehow increased fishing pressure would be a good thing for the native fish. Chuck Vance Chuck, My feeling that there is a sincerity for the conservation of the place goes out the window when I read all of the ads promoting flyfishing in this section of the river. The personal-pimpin' ads in the back of this issue of FlyFisherman magazine, to wit. This is not about protecting anything but revenue. I continue to hear traditional subsistence anglers be denegrated and mocked by this group and by TU. TBone A cash flow runs through it. |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Conan The Librarian wrote: Scott Seidman wrote: Conan The Librarian wrote in news:ecmuij$das6$1 @news.swt.edu: So are you in favor of Tim's last suggestion that they stock fish capable of reproducing? Just read the post that generated Tim's response. I guess you could say that at some level, I feel that the bucket biology has already taken place, and that if the state decides that they want to dump in fertile rainbow trout and see what happens, it wouldn't be all that huge of a tragedy. The "wild" trout that result within a few seasons would be every bit as "native" as the brown trout in there right now. It's somewhat disingenuous to make believe that the Battenkill fishery is pure in any sense of the word. I'm not saying it's pure, but it doesn't make sense to me to say, "Well, we made a mistake stocking those browns, so let's add another non-native species to compound the situation while we're at it." Chuck Vance So Chuck - which introduced species would have more affect on a wild brook trout population - browns or rainbows? Your pal, TBone |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
|
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote: snip I continue to hear traditional subsistence anglers be denegrated and mocked by this group and by TU. What is a "traditional subsistence angler" ? A high explosives expert? Chuck Vance (an explosive charge runs through it) |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
|
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Conan The Librarian wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: snip I continue to hear traditional subsistence anglers be denegrated and mocked by this group and by TU. What is a "traditional subsistence angler" ? A high explosives expert? One definition of traditional subsistence angling is Native American spearing and netting. However, I don't think that's what Tim is talking about. -- Ken Fortenberry |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
t... wrote: snip I continue to hear traditional subsistence anglers be denegrated and mocked by this group and by TU. What is a "traditional subsistence angler" ? -- Ken Fortenberry Somebody who needs the State to stock triploid rainbows, of course. |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Conan The Librarian wrote: wrote: Conan The Librarian wrote: I'm not saying it's pure, but it doesn't make sense to me to say, "Well, we made a mistake stocking those browns, so let's add another non-native species to compound the situation while we're at it." So Chuck - which introduced species would have more affect on a wild brook trout population - browns or rainbows? So Tim - which is better for the true native fish, having one non-native population introduced or having two introduced? Chuck Vance Neither. Halfordian Golfer It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout. |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: snip I continue to hear traditional subsistence anglers be denegrated and mocked by this group and by TU. What is a "traditional subsistence angler" ? -- Ken Fortenberry People who fish to catch and kill fish to eat. Like we've been doing for 10,000 years before Lee Wulff declared we can make a lot more money if we're just mean to them. It really chaps my butt when so called brothers of the angle denegrate people who understand this, who like to eat wild fish, harvest the bounty of nature, while claiming moral high ground when their only using the animal to promote the latest vest fashion. Turns out the fish from the high seas fish farms are poison. Only wild fish is the real McCoy. As I said years ago, when I was 'sent to the grocer': What price then, for wild brook trout meat? TBone A cash flow runs through it. |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
|
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
|
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
"Conan The Librarian" wrote in message ... wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: What is a "traditional subsistence angler" ? People who fish to catch and kill fish to eat. Translation: An angler who fishes for sport but agrees with your views on C&R. Chuck Vance (I daresay there aren't many truly "subsistence" anglers in the US, and none at all in ROFF) See what happens when people work on the assumption that timmy is interested in discussion? :) A subsistence angler in the U.S. (traditional or otherwise) would, if caught, quickly end up in jail for consistently violating catch and possession restrictions......and timmy would be somewhere near the back of the lynch mob, where it's nice and safe. Wolfgang |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: snip I continue to hear traditional subsistence anglers be denegrated and mocked by this group and by TU. What is a "traditional subsistence angler" ? People who fish to catch and kill fish to eat. I don't think so. I was taught to eat everything I killed and that to do otherwise was wrong. If we caught 150 catfish from a farm pond, we cleaned and eventually ate 150 catfish. But that had nothing at all to with subsistence and neither does sport fishing in the US today. You'd have to be a moron to spend money on a fishing license, gear and bait and expect to break even when you can go to the grocery store and pick up a Mrs. Pauls for far less. It really chaps my butt when so called brothers of the angle denegrate people who understand this, who like to eat wild fish, harvest the bounty of nature, while claiming moral high ground when their only using the animal to promote the latest vest fashion. ... I've seen bait fishermen and their filthy offspring catching and killing fish. They usually have tobacco spittle dried into their scraggly chin hairs, obscene tatoos and rags for clothes. And the men look even worse. -- Ken Fortenberry |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
|
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:31:43 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: I've seen bait fishermen and their filthy offspring catching and killing fish. They usually have tobacco spittle dried into their scraggly chin hairs, obscene tatoos and rags for clothes. And the men look even worse. LOL. Sounds like Burrel's Ford on the Chattouga River in Georgia/South Carolina ( the river in "Deliverance"). Beautiful river to fly fish, but if you do, bring a plastic bag with you to pick up the beer cans, bait containers, styrofoam cups, etc, etc, etc. left behind by the "subsistence anglers". Walk up-stream about a mile or two to fish. The SA's are too lazy to walk that far. Dave |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Conan The Librarian wrote: wrote: Conan The Librarian wrote: So Tim - which is better for the true native fish, having one non-native population introduced or having two introduced? Neither. So Tim - which is more, 1 or 1+1? Chuck Vance (neither isn't an acceptable answer) Well, by these standards your answer really sucked g. You did not answer my question at all. The question was, given a management goal of wild brook trout, which would be better, if you had to chose, brown trout or rainbow trout? My answer is an emphatic rainbow trout. They are less predaceous, less likely to create self-sustaining populations, are more fun to catch and produce better return for the economy which translates in to habitat and education funding. No brainer, stock the rainbows or kill the browns. One or the other. I'd be obliged if you'r take a stab at an answer. Thanks, TBone It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout. |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Wolfgang wrote: "Conan The Librarian" wrote in message ... wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: What is a "traditional subsistence angler" ? People who fish to catch and kill fish to eat. Translation: An angler who fishes for sport but agrees with your views on C&R. Chuck Vance (I daresay there aren't many truly "subsistence" anglers in the US, and none at all in ROFF) See what happens when people work on the assumption that timmy is interested in discussion? :) A subsistence angler in the U.S. (traditional or otherwise) would, if caught, quickly end up in jail for consistently violating catch and possession restrictions......and timmy would be somewhere near the back of the lynch mob, where it's nice and safe. Wolfgang Mmmmmmm park duck, golf course goose...mmmmmmm battenkill browns..... |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: snip I continue to hear traditional subsistence anglers be denegrated and mocked by this group and by TU. What is a "traditional subsistence angler" ? People who fish to catch and kill fish to eat. I don't think so. I was taught to eat everything I killed and that to do otherwise was wrong. If we caught 150 catfish from a farm pond, we cleaned and eventually ate 150 catfish. But that had nothing at all to with subsistence and neither does sport fishing in the US today. You'd have to be a moron to spend money on a fishing license, gear and bait and expect to break even when you can go to the grocery store and pick up a Mrs. Pauls for far less. It really chaps my butt when so called brothers of the angle denegrate people who understand this, who like to eat wild fish, harvest the bounty of nature, while claiming moral high ground when their only using the animal to promote the latest vest fashion. ... I've seen bait fishermen and their filthy offspring catching and killing fish. They usually have tobacco spittle dried into their scraggly chin hairs, obscene tatoos and rags for clothes. And the men look even worse. -- Ken Fortenberry By definition, then, C&R anglers are unethical spportsmen. It can be no other way because the hunter is wasting the meat of all fish that succomb from the stress of being caught and release, around 5% on average. The C&K angler that *quits* when he has a limit definately maintains the ethical high ground. TBone |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
|
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
wrote in message oups.com... Wolfgang wrote: "Conan The Librarian" wrote in message ... wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: What is a "traditional subsistence angler" ? People who fish to catch and kill fish to eat. Translation: An angler who fishes for sport but agrees with your views on C&R. Chuck Vance (I daresay there aren't many truly "subsistence" anglers in the US, and none at all in ROFF) See what happens when people work on the assumption that timmy is interested in discussion? :) A subsistence angler in the U.S. (traditional or otherwise) would, if caught, quickly end up in jail for consistently violating catch and possession restrictions......and timmy would be somewhere near the back of the lynch mob, where it's nice and safe. Wolfgang Mmmmmmm park duck, golf course goose...mmmmmmm battenkill browns..... Dumbass. Wolfgang |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
wrote in message ups.com... Dave LaCourse wrote: On 25 Aug 2006 08:41:51 -0700, wrote: It really chaps my butt when so called brothers of the angle denegrate people who understand this, who like to eat wild fish, harvest the bounty of nature, while claiming moral high ground when their only using the animal to promote the latest vest fashion. Turns out the fish from the high seas fish farms are poison. Only wild fish is the real McCoy. As I said years ago, when I was 'sent to the grocer': What price then, for wild brook trout meat? Tim, how can we make you understand that if all the rivers and streams in this great land were catch and kill, there would be nothing but stocked fish in them. To wit, The Rapid River in Maine. It used to be catch and kill (1 brookie/day). Fifteen years ago if you caught a 15 inch brook trout, it was the catch of the day. And many fishermen would kill that 15 incher and eat it. I *know* how good it must have tasted, but that fish was part of the breeding stock. The ration then was about 1 brook trout for every 10 salmon landed. Today things have changed. After declaring brook trout catch and release ONLY, they have come back to the point where five pounders are not uncommon. Five pounders! Now when you catch a fish, if you don't see the take, you don't know whether it's a brookie or a salmon. During the fight, of course, you can tell. The ratio now is about 50/50, unheard of 15 years ago. Conclusion: Catch and release has brought the brook trout population *specific* to this river back to normal. It has saved this strain of brook trout from extinction. As you would have it, you'd say, "Who gives a ****. Stock pellet rainbows. Everyone'll be happy." And *that* my friend is bull****. Dave Gee Dave, the world manages fisheries around the concept of harvest. I wonder how in the world they do that!!!!! They deplete fish stocks all over the world. Dumbass. Wolfgang |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: What is a "traditional subsistence angler" ? People who fish to catch and kill fish to eat. I don't think so. I was taught to eat everything I killed and that to do otherwise was wrong. ... By definition, then, C&R anglers are unethical spportsmen. It can be no other way because the hunter is wasting the meat of all fish that succomb from the stress of being caught and release, around 5% on average. The C&K angler that *quits* when he has a limit definately maintains the ethical high ground. That's your ethical high ground and you're welcome to it, my ethical high ground is far more nuanced. I've returned dead cutthroat to the stream because of C&R regulations, sometimes in situations where it was unwise to do so (think grizzly country), but I'm not so egocentric as to think that if I don't eat the dead fish that it's being "wasted". There are other links in the food chain, ya know . -- Ken Fortenberry |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
|
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Jonathan Cook wrote:
Conan The Librarian wrote: (I daresay there aren't many truly "subsistence" anglers in the US, and none at all in ROFF) Apparently people who investigate such matters would disagree. From the Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan, technical report #3, 1997, by Lauren Lambert: "Thirty-four percent of the individuals surveyed exhibited characteristics of subsistence fishing. For this study, someone displaying characteristics of subsistence fishing was an individual who said: a) the fish caught was a primary source of their diet, or b) the fish caught was either somewhat or very important to their or somebody else's diet, or c) that six or more of their meals per month were prepared from the fish caught at the study site." If extrapolatable, 34% of all the licensed anglers in the US is _millions_ of subsistence anglers. You can claim some ridiculuously high, starve if you don't fish, definition of subsistence angling, or you can have a meaningful definition that fisheries specialists can use in their management of the resources. There's nothing wrong with Tim's use of the phrase. He's more in line with the way the specialists use it than what I'm hearing from the rest of y'all. Fair enough. I'm wrong. I see no mention of "recreational" anglers though. Just how do they define them (us)? Chuck Vance |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Jonathan Cook wrote: Conan The Librarian wrote: (I daresay there aren't many truly "subsistence" anglers in the US, and none at all in ROFF) Apparently people who investigate such matters would disagree. From the Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan, technical report #3, 1997, by Lauren Lambert: "Thirty-four percent of the individuals surveyed exhibited characteristics of subsistence fishing. For this study, someone displaying characteristics of subsistence fishing was an individual who said: a) the fish caught was a primary source of their diet, or b) the fish caught was either somewhat or very important to their or somebody else's diet, or c) that six or more of their meals per month were prepared from the fish caught at the study site." If extrapolatable, 34% of all the licensed anglers in the US is _millions_ of subsistence anglers. You can claim some ridiculuously high, starve if you don't fish, definition of subsistence angling, or you can have a meaningful definition that fisheries specialists can use in their management of the resources. There's nothing wrong with Tim's use of the phrase. He's more in line with the way the specialists use it than what I'm hearing from the rest of y'all. And, according to the definition above, I'm a subsistence angler/hunter. Still working on the last 50 pounds or so of moose meat (did a crock pot of meat last week, froze some of it), and added 40 pounds of halibut from AK to the freezer this summer (had some last night, yum yum!). Jon. Excellent references. Amazing to think how quickly we've lost this touch with our place in nature (and in the food chain). Never had moose. How is it? Halfordian Golfer Guilt replaced the creel. T |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message ... Conan The Librarian wrote: (I daresay there aren't many truly "subsistence" anglers in the US, and none at all in ROFF) Apparently people who investigate such matters would disagree. Well, there's a first! From the Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan, technical report #3, 1997, by Lauren Lambert: "Thirty-four percent of the individuals surveyed exhibited characteristics of subsistence fishing. For this study, someone displaying characteristics of subsistence fishing was an individual who said: a) the fish caught was a primary source of their diet, or b) the fish caught was either somewhat or very important to their or somebody else's diet, or c) that six or more of their meals per month were prepared from the fish caught at the study site." See the part where it says, "For this study..."? If extrapolatable, 34% of all the licensed anglers in the US is _millions_ of subsistence anglers. Uh huh.....and then there's millions of subsistence hunters, millions of subsistence farmers, tens of millions of subsistence gardeners, millions of subsistence orchardists, millions of subsistence vintners, millions of subsistence brewers, millions of subsistence mushroom hunters.....and, last but by no means least, hundreds of millions of subsistence shoppers. Wow. That's a whole LOT of subsisting! You can claim some ridiculuously high, starve if you don't fish, definition of subsistence angling, And you and and anybody else can claim whatever dumbass definition you please, too. So? or you can have a meaningful definition that fisheries specialists can use in their management of the resources. Any definition can be meaningful. Hell, it doesn't even require so much as consensus between two people for it to have meaning. The question that arises is one of how useful a particular definition is. The authors of the study quoted above have made a point of delimiting the scope of their definition. See the part where it says, "For this study..."? There's nothing wrong with Tim's use of the phrase. Well, aside from the fact that he's a dumbass hag-ridden troll to whom discussion is anathema, yes, there's plenty wrong with it. For one thing (and it's enough), he has failed to define terms.....for the usual and obvious reasons. He's more in line with the way the specialists use it than what I'm hearing from the rest of y'all. And it didn't occur to you that perhaps no one else was interested in using the term the way some "specialists" (leaving for another time a discussion of the obvious fact that all kinds of specialists can use all kinds of terms in all kinds of different ways) do? And, according to the definition above, I'm a subsistence angler/hunter. You'd be amazed at what you are according to some definitions. Others......well, I think you can probably guess. Still working on the last 50 pounds or so of moose meat (did a crock pot of meat last week, froze some of it), and added 40 pounds of halibut from AK to the freezer this summer (had some last night, yum yum!). Got any good recipes to share? Wolfgang |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: What is a "traditional subsistence angler" ? People who fish to catch and kill fish to eat. I don't think so. I was taught to eat everything I killed and that to do otherwise was wrong. ... By definition, then, C&R anglers are unethical spportsmen. It can be no other way because the hunter is wasting the meat of all fish that succomb from the stress of being caught and release, around 5% on average. The C&K angler that *quits* when he has a limit definately maintains the ethical high ground. That's your ethical high ground and you're welcome to it, my ethical high ground is far more nuanced. I've returned dead cutthroat to the stream because of C&R regulations, sometimes in situations where it was unwise to do so (think grizzly country), but I'm not so egocentric as to think that if I don't eat the dead fish that it's being "wasted". There are other links in the food chain, ya know . -- Ken Fortenberry Your license is a fishing license not a "feed the wildlife" license. My wife thinks we shouldn't hunt deer because enough get hit by cars. Halfiordian Golfer Guilt replaced the creel |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter