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

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

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