Pissing Cousins
 

Mr. Opus McDopus typed:
"Tim J." wrote in message
...

If I was ****ing with Timmy W., what exactly were you doing with him?

My point on the NGTSNBN was that you and Tim are the only ones posting
there, and that has just been a ****ing match. I don't recall going tit
for tat with Tim and have no intention of doing so.
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

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.
 

Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:
"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...


I can't speak for Op.
Take care,

Jon.

I can. I have no interest in the topic at hand, nor any worth while info
that I could impart. I no nothing of the dynamics of this discussion,
beyond that fact that a stream needs water, trout need water, trout need
bugs, streams need to be able to support bugs life to support trout, Tim's
beating a dead horse and I don't like beating dead animals.

Op

No problem Op, someone else will go ahead and decide for you. Just
don't bitch about it later.

TBone

To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
 

Conan The Librarian wrote:
wrote:

Of course you can have floods and droughts in the same year.

That's what I said. You said the statement made no sense.

We have
them *every* year in Colorado. It's called run-off and the fish manage
just fine, even in the worst of it.

And we have them all the time down here in Texas. And it's not from
runoff ... well, in a sense it is, it's from limsetone streambeds.

Fishing in drought or warm water
conditions, however, is another thing altogether, when the only
responible thing to do is to quit fishing entirely. Of course the
majority of guides and fly shops won't do that, even here, and the
corpses of hundreds of trouts littering the Roaring Fork, for example,
on a summer day are mute testimonies to this fact.

What is going on here is flyfishing elitism on the Battenkill.

So your proposal to "improve" fishing is to stock rainbows in order
to draw more fishermen and ultimately increase pressure on all the fish,
including the natives.


Chuck Vance (talk about "a cash flow runs through it")

As non-intuitive as it might seem, the effective fishing pressure might
actually be less. Fishing pressure on pure C&R streams around here are
the highest in the state. Most catch and kill anglers limit their
fishing as well as their harvest and don't spend dawn to dusk in a
compulsive 100 fishing day a year brawl. The browns will definately
adapt. They're nocturnal, will find undercut banks, and are very
elusive.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it

To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
 

wrote in message
...


Just killfile him.....the experience is greatly improved.
- Ken

Sound advice. Don't you wish you had the intellectual wherewithal to
understand it and the force of will to implement a personal program based on
it? :)

Wolfgang

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:
wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

So your proposal to "improve" fishing is to stock rainbows in order
to draw more fishermen and ultimately increase pressure on all the fish,
including the natives.

As non-intuitive as it might seem, the effective fishing pressure might
actually be less. Fishing pressure on pure C&R streams around here are
the highest in the state. Most catch and kill anglers limit their
fishing as well as their harvest and don't spend dawn to dusk in a
compulsive 100 fishing day a year brawl.

It's not just non-intuitive, but it's totally illogical because it
ignores the fact that you yourself proposed that it would help the river
because it would bring out the more meat fishermen (who you claim are
the vast majority of fishermen anyway; see the PA study you cited).
According to your scenario, this increase in fishermen would bring in
more money, as well as bring more attention to the river. This
attention would then cause more money to be spent for bankside
improvements, etc., which would then make the river a better place for
all. (Stay with me here. I know it makes no sense, but it *is* your
argument, afterall.)

All of this of course ignores the fact that this increased
popularity would *of* *necessity* cause more pressure to be placed on
the native fish through competition for food with the stockers, as well
as pressure from anglers who are ostensibly there to fish for stockers.
Increased fishing pressure also means more bankside erosion and
degradation of the habitat, so there go your improvements. (And that's
without even going to go into the argument of whether meat fishermen or
C&R anglers are more likely to take better care of the fish they release.)

The browns will definately
adapt. They're nocturnal, will find undercut banks, and are very
elusive.

In this case it appears the folks who actually *know* the waters
(see others in this thread) say that C&R was responsible for the river
making a comeback in the first place.
[snip]

Your broad brush (and, quite frankly, innacurate) stereotyping of
fishermen notwithstanding are you suggesting that the Vermont Fish and
Game biologists are incompetent to make this decision?

To this end, I love John Gierach's short story on the history of the
coming and going of the special regulations on the St. Vrain river. To
sum it up, the only difference was that there were more people when it
was pure catch and release. The parking lot was always full. Pretty
similar story actually, the St. Vrain is very marginal habitat as it
enteres the arid plains where the transition to cottonwood occurs. A
little further out, it is not viable trout water at all.

Thanks,

TBone

To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
 

Conan The Librarian wrote:
wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

So your proposal to "improve" fishing is to stock rainbows in order
to draw more fishermen and ultimately increase pressure on all the fish,
including the natives.

As non-intuitive as it might seem, the effective fishing pressure might
actually be less. Fishing pressure on pure C&R streams around here are
the highest in the state. Most catch and kill anglers limit their
fishing as well as their harvest and don't spend dawn to dusk in a
compulsive 100 fishing day a year brawl.

It's not just non-intuitive, but it's totally illogical because it
ignores the fact that you yourself proposed that it would help the river
because it would bring out the more meat fishermen (who you claim are
the vast majority of fishermen anyway; see the PA study you cited).
According to your scenario, this increase in fishermen would bring in
more money, as well as bring more attention to the river. This
attention would then cause more money to be spent for bankside
improvements, etc., which would then make the river a better place for
all. (Stay with me here. I know it makes no sense, but it *is* your
argument, afterall.)

All of this of course ignores the fact that this increased
popularity would *of* *necessity* cause more pressure to be placed on
the native fish through competition for food with the stockers, as well
as pressure from anglers who are ostensibly there to fish for stockers.
Increased fishing pressure also means more bankside erosion and
degradation of the habitat, so there go your improvements. (And that's
without even going to go into the argument of whether meat fishermen or
C&R anglers are more likely to take better care of the fish they release.)

The browns will definately
adapt. They're nocturnal, will find undercut banks, and are very
elusive.

In this case it appears the folks who actually *know* the waters
(see others in this thread) say that C&R was responsible for the river
making a comeback in the first place.
[snip]

Your broad brush (and, quite frankly, innacurate) stereotyping of
fishermen notwithstanding are you suggesting that the Vermont Fish and
Game biologists are incompetent to make this decision?

To this end, I love John Gierach's short story on the history of the
coming and going of the special regulations on the St. Vrain river. To
sum it up, the only difference was that there were more people when it
was pure catch and release. The parking lot was always full. Pretty
similar story actually, the St. Vrain is very marginal habitat as it
enteres the arid plains where the transition to cottonwood occurs. A
little further out, it is not viable trout water at all.

Thanks,

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.
 

Wayne Knight wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Help me understand what is *really* going on here.


People are trying to reach a consensus on the best way to help improve a
jewel of a stream that has not been stocked in 30+ years that is under
pressure from a variety of threats. If the issue is habitat restoration and
threat mitigation, then planted fish, in this case rainbows, regardless of
their ability to reproduce in some people's educated mind will create
competition for the born in the stream fish that currently reside there. The
C&R issue is secondary to the issue at hand but you apparently can not
accept that.

If it were up to me and it's not, I'd declare open season on the browns,
continue to work with the various stakeholders to improve the water quality
and the brook trout population. And if I were to stock anything in it, it
would be brookies or browns if they could not be removed. Regardless of
what worked or didn't work in Colorado (I seem to recall them insisting to
dump whirling disease infected rainbows into their stocked water), the
stream conditions are different in the Battenkill. And that's not unique to
the Battenkill. Once you've seen one trout stream, you've seen one trout
stream.

Wayne,

What I really like about this post is that it speaks to what the goal
should be more than maintaining the status quo. If the goal is
conservation, or better, restoration, I don't understand anything less
than an eventual goal of restoring the indiginous species, though I can
imagine the battle you'd have here replacing the browns, rainbows and
brookies with the only indiginous trout, the cutt. Having big
piscivorious browns in the river when you're trying to rear brook trout
is like inviting Michael Moore to dinner when you only have one
chicken.

I disagree that the rainbows would outcompete the browns and cause any
problems for them whatsoever. I'd respectfully suggest that the
response has been more emotional than practical and I'd also suggest
that the rainbows would be every bit as natural in that river as the
browns, but better fighters and more willing to rise.

Sounds to me like what the river needs is a whole lot of trees on the
banks as well as artifical islands planted in the middle to provide
cover on each side. Sounds like the browns might be keeping the
brookies from prospering. So, plant the rainbows and collect enougn
money for this work, do the restoration work, and then work on getting
the desired species back in balance.

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel