|
|
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.
daytripper wrote:
http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376 Discuss. I hope to attend the meeting. It seems to be a warped kind of democracy in that the locals want something and the state feels obliged to give it to them, to hell with the science. Ken Cox, who I have met and regularly provide creel surveys to, sounds buffoon-like with his "compromise" goal. The decision to stock or not is a binary thing. At least be honest about it. I have read studies on the effect of stocking in PA streams that already hold a head of wild fish. The stocked fish become "delinquent" and disrupt the feeding patterns of the wild fish. I don't know what success he alludes to in England. The chalk streams are regularly stocked, but I thought the UK stocked fingerling trout that CAN reproduce. He could not be referring to the ghastly Put-and-Take fisheries with their pellet fed monsters that taste like ****? Rumor I heard this week is that a landowner who is participating in a stream side restoration project is going to pull out if the state stocks the river. This is very bad news, because the lack of stream-side cover IS the major problem in this river. But there is a lot of emotion around this issue, make no mistake. I shared some emails with the Central MA ROFFians earlier this year that show a 1/2 dozen wild browns all over 15", some a lot more, all caught in the same morning. This is what this river does produce and if the resources were spent improving the overall habitat, even the locals could catch enough to take a few home. |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
"daytripper" wrote in message ... http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376 Discuss. No. (Not to the discussion). No to the stocking of sterile Bows to satisfy the "kill 'em & Grill 'Em" crowd. The Battenkill is a national treasure....and should be treated accordingly. Correct the habitat problems and the trout will come back strong. "Quick Fix" solutions usually cause more problems than they "fix". Unfortunately...too many fishermen look at the "now".....instead of the future. Sad, really. Dave M PS: Too many fishermen want Bows (a great trout when wild, by the way)..because they're too ffing stupid to catch Browns. 'Nuff said. |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
daytripper wrote: http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376 Discuss. Stock it. Wild trout stream my ass. How can anyone call it 'wild' is beyond me. If you're a conservationist and 'really' care about the 'wildness' of the place you'd be pretty hypocritical not to recognize the denizens of that river to be descendent from other stockings. If you're a conservationist you'd be supporting one action and one action only: Rotenone the whole thing, close it to fishing, fix the habitat problems and restock it with indiginous brook trout. Anything else is just bull**** so go ahead and stock it. Might as well. TBone It is impossible to catch and release wild trout. |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Wolfgang wrote: [snip] who can't help but marvel at the twisted abortion that passes for the logic behind restocking indigenous trout in a dead habitat. If it's a dead habitat than who gives a rip about a few stockers? 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.
|
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
daytripper wrote:
http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376 Discuss. Exactly what happened to the Battenkill to make it suddenly poor fishing? Did they develop the banks and silt it in? Pete Collin |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Peter A. Collin wrote:
Exactly what happened to the Battenkill to make it suddenly poor fishing? Did they develop the banks and silt it in? The river suffered a decline in mid-size fish in the mid-90s. Studies were conducted and the river was made C&R for most of the main stem in VT, to the NY State Line. In NY the river is stocked, BTW. Vermont have not stocked since the 60s. The state's studies concluded the issue was the lack of stream-side habitat and this resulted in an absence of in-stream cover. I don't have the number to hand, but it is surprising how many trout a dead-fall tree trunk can incubate. I recently re-read Merwin's "Battenkill". Written in 1992 before all this went down, it is oddly prescient. In one chapter he invites us to imagine the river 200 years. His description is of a slow moving stream with lots of dead-fall and debris. Merwin identifies this as a key issue for the river. In the last 3 years the state has started to work with the landowners on various projects in conjunction with funding from Orvis, TU and at least one other interest groups. Surveys of tributary streams reveal an astounding numbers of young-of-the-year, so the basis is good, but the main river simply cannot grow these fish. My opinion is that they should fix the habitat issues and let the river come back by itself. I don't think this opinion will prevail, so at best it will have a neutral effect on the real problem. |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
GM wrote: Peter A. Collin wrote: Exactly what happened to the Battenkill to make it suddenly poor fishing? Did they develop the banks and silt it in? The river suffered a decline in mid-size fish in the mid-90s. Studies were conducted and the river was made C&R for most of the main stem in VT, to the NY State Line. In NY the river is stocked, BTW. Vermont have not stocked since the 60s. The state's studies concluded the issue was the lack of stream-side habitat and this resulted in an absence of in-stream cover. I don't have the number to hand, but it is surprising how many trout a dead-fall tree trunk can incubate. I recently re-read Merwin's "Battenkill". Written in 1992 before all this went down, it is oddly prescient. In one chapter he invites us to imagine the river 200 years. His description is of a slow moving stream with lots of dead-fall and debris. Merwin identifies this as a key issue for the river. In the last 3 years the state has started to work with the landowners on various projects in conjunction with funding from Orvis, TU and at least one other interest groups. Surveys of tributary streams reveal an astounding numbers of young-of-the-year, so the basis is good, but the main river simply cannot grow these fish. My opinion is that they should fix the habitat issues and let the river come back by itself. I don't think this opinion will prevail, so at best it will have a neutral effect on the real problem. It may be that stocking with catchables is exactly the right answer. License fees and programs such as the habitat stamp in Colorado: https://www1.wildlifelicense.com/co/ Will provide the funding and interest in this activity. Not everybody recruited to the sport is a catch and release fly fisherman. Stocking catchables promotes the sport to those who fish infrequently but want to catch a few to eat (and otherwise would not buy a license or the habitat contribution), especially the youth and inner city anglers. It's a huge part of the equation in Colorado. http://www.co.blm.gov/gjra/grandvalleyfishing.htm Please consider the details of the very important role of put and take stocking program in the 'holistic management strategy' for Colorado (see goal of increased in put and take opportunities to 17.8% in the fishing section of the overal strategy). http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonl...0catchables%22 My personal feeling is that we (this group in particular) has a mental 'slide' that immediately relegates the word 'stocking' in to the negative. The fact is: Colorado fishing is excellent and getting better. Stocking catchables is one of the diverse strategies for making it so. It's not appropriate in all places, but I can tell you that places like St. Vrain State Park, that is horrible habitat, provides exceptional opportunity to catch and take home a few trout for dinner, and, despite what you think, they are very good table fare. So my advice remains: Stock it and take a kid fishing. He (or she) will be the future that protects fishing and will care about habitat. Why not invite the Colorado Division of Wildlife to Vermont for a management roundtable? 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.
|
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
GM wrote: wrote: Why not invite the Colorado Division of Wildlife to Vermont for a management roundtable? Why don't you participate in the thread with something like a level of sincerity? Why not read what people post and give it more than millisecond of consideration. Why not look at the meaning of the word "fix" versus "band-aid". As far as I can tell the moniker "dumbass" fits well with you. Why not invite the Colorado Division of Wildlife to Vermont for a management roundtable? Halfordian Golfer A cash flow runs through it |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Dave Martel wrote: "daytripper" wrote in message ... http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376 Discuss. No. (Not to the discussion). No to the stocking of sterile Bows to satisfy the "kill 'em & Grill 'Em" crowd. The Battenkill is a national treasure....and should be treated accordingly. Correct the habitat problems and the trout will come back strong. "Quick Fix" solutions usually cause more problems than they "fix". Unfortunately...too many fishermen look at the "now".....instead of the future. Sad, really. Dave M PS: Too many fishermen want Bows (a great trout when wild, by the way)..because they're too ffing stupid to catch Browns. 'Nuff said. Hi Dave, We should examine history and the fact that people were initially opposed to planting the brown trout for precisely this reason and never forget that it was stocking that created the initial populations which all existing streambred trout (not wild) originated. It should be no surprise to anyone that fishing or habitat interest has waned because browns are tough to fool. As harsh as it is, you could consider yourself a 'brown trout special interest group' at this point, exclusionary of the general populace that wants good fishing. This 'bull headedness' might be getting in the way of a compromise that could be the eventual best solution. If, when people cite reasonable long term managing tactics (that have proven successful in other similar situations), the ideas are discarded and the people called 'dumbasses' what hope is there for a real solution? If your answer really is that the base problem is people are just too ****ing stupid what is your hope for a real solution? Your pal, Halfordian Golfer |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
GM wrote: daytripper wrote: http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376 Discuss. I hope to attend the meeting. It seems to be a warped kind of democracy in that the locals want something and the state feels obliged to give it to them, to hell with the science. Ken Cox, who I have met and regularly provide creel surveys to, sounds buffoon-like with his "compromise" goal. The decision to stock or not is a binary thing. At least be honest about it. I have read studies on the effect of stocking in PA streams that already hold a head of wild fish. The stocked fish become "delinquent" and disrupt the feeding patterns of the wild fish. I don't know what success he alludes to in England. The chalk streams are regularly stocked, but I thought the UK stocked fingerling trout that CAN reproduce. He could not be referring to the ghastly Put-and-Take fisheries with their pellet fed monsters that taste like ****? Rumor I heard this week is that a landowner who is participating in a stream side restoration project is going to pull out if the state stocks the river. This is very bad news, because the lack of stream-side cover IS the major problem in this river. But there is a lot of emotion around this issue, make no mistake. I shared some emails with the Central MA ROFFians earlier this year that show a 1/2 dozen wild browns all over 15", some a lot more, all caught in the same morning. This is what this river does produce and if the resources were spent improving the overall habitat, even the locals could catch enough to take a few home. Hi GM, A couple of points to make. In my opinion you are suggesting managing the river to optimize what is there, not what is optimal or desired in the long term. From a pure management perspective this might not make the most sense. I think your motivations might be clouded by love, which is understandable. If what you suggest is precisely the right course than why not improve the resident bullhead or channel catfish populations? Bullhead are a delicacy on the table and are probably indiginous to boot. What is your real reason for protecting the brown trout? That they can exist in sub-standard conditions? Is sub-standard the goal you are setting for a long term policy? You should also know that finishing pellets have been improved greatly improving the taste of fish raised in farms. All rainbow trout you eat prepared by chefs in 5 star restaurants are farm-reared rainbow trout so please don't automatically assume them to be the livery paste of the past. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
daytripper wrote: http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376 Discuss. Hi Daytripper, Been working on a discussion here but the personal insults are making it difficult. I have been trying to provide a perspective that is rooted in science and sound wildlife management but this seems to be an emotional issue as much as anything. In any event I am trying to provide some quality discussion and have posted suggestions, a reference to colorado management stratagies that can be applied as well as personal observations. I have avoided invectives and ad hominem attacks and have stayed on topic. Today I wrote a letter to the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department to gauge their take on the situation. The letter is below my .sig. Hopefully you have found the discussion productive. Your pal, Halfordian Golfer It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout Dear Sir or Madam, I am a colorado angler that has become aware of a controversy surrounding the planting of 1,000 sterile rainbow trout in the Battenkill. My understanding is that the game and fis department is promoting the idea as a way to provide a quality angling experience to increase recruitment to the sport and to provide license revenue to support research and habitat improvement projects. I also understand that there is concern that this could disrupt the existing brown trout population through competition in a marginal existing habitat equation. I write today to ask if you could provide me more information on this issue so that I can be fully educated and conversant on the subject matter which is of extreme interest to me. Thank you very much, [address omitted] |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
daytripper wrote: http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376 Discuss. In re-reading the material, it is clear that there is some unknown or overt concern about the affect of the rainbow trout on the ability if the stream-bred brown trout with some comparisons made to english chalk streams. Thought I'd pass along a personal observation that brown and rainbow trout coexist in colorado nicely, along with whitefish and the only indiginous trout, the cutt, which all seem to adapt to different feeding niches. The rainbows at the head of the runs, in the current, picking off clingers while the browns at the back picking off burrowers and terrestrials. Colorado streams, especially the high mountain and high gradient streams are not altogether rich. This is a harse, almost sterile, cold environment with a very short growth season. There is a move, albeit a slow one, to eradicte the non-indiginous species in places where the native cutthroat is the most responsible 'conservation' goal. It will take a diverse management policy to achieve this long term goal, one which involves stocking catchables to increase recruitment. Oddly, it is not competition which is the biggest threat to the indiginous cutthroat but, rather, it is loss of genetic diversity through hybridization. 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: GM wrote: wrote: Why not invite the Colorado Division of Wildlife to Vermont for a management roundtable? Why don't you participate in the thread with something like a level of sincerity? Why not read what people post and give it more than millisecond of consideration. Why not look at the meaning of the word "fix" versus "band-aid". As far as I can tell the moniker "dumbass" fits well with you. Why not invite the Colorado Division of Wildlife to Vermont for a management roundtable? Dumbass. Halfordian Golfer A cash flow runs through it Moron. Wolfgang |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Wolfgang wrote: wrote: GM wrote: wrote: Why not invite the Colorado Division of Wildlife to Vermont for a management roundtable? Why don't you participate in the thread with something like a level of sincerity? Why not read what people post and give it more than millisecond of consideration. Why not look at the meaning of the word "fix" versus "band-aid". As far as I can tell the moniker "dumbass" fits well with you. Why not invite the Colorado Division of Wildlife to Vermont for a management roundtable? Dumbass. Halfordian Golfer A cash flow runs through it Moron. Wolfgang Wolfgang, I would like to respectfully ask you to stop with the personal invectives. I'd also like to ask the question again: Why not invite the Colorado Division of Wildlife to Vermont for a multi-state fisheries management roundtable? Wouldn't it be possible that a neutral party with a tremendous amount of experience bring a positive influence with this decision? Wouldn't it be great to compare strategic and tactical management plans taking the best from both worlds? Isn't the free exchange of information important to the resolution of any difficult multi-use decision such as this? I think I'll propose it if the Vermont F&G return my inquiry. Thank you, Halfordian Golfer Guilt replaced the creel |
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.
Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: Wolfgang wrote: Dumbass. ... Moron. Wolfgang, I would like to respectfully ask you to stop with the personal invectives. ... LOL !! You're talking about the vast majority of Little Wolfie's roff posts and 100% of his entertainment value. Better to stick him in your bozo bin than to deprive the rest of us our comedy. So, how goes the brilliant writing career? And hey, what ever happened to those awesome affliction/dead relative/vicarious award du jour reports? I'm sure I can't be the only one here who misses those. Wolfgang we aims to amuse. :) |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
"daytripper" wrote in message ... http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376 Discuss. Don't know what's right for Battenkill. I do know I enjoyed fishing in Montana very much, knowing that no matter where I went, if I caught a fish, it was wild. |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
daytripper wrote: http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376 Discuss. Something I would like to get clear before I make up myu mind on this. From this article from the Burlington Free Press: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=4 "In addition, the stocked rainbows would probably crowd out the wild fish as they compete for the few hiding places. That's the last thing the wild trout need or deserve. Finally, the river and its wildlife are already under great stress from both drought and high water. This is not the time to increase the pressure on the river's overall health or the fish trying to survive there." So let me get this absolutely straight. The anglers are, at once, concerned that the stocked rainbow would stress the wild trout and it's also suggested that the wild trout are under "GREAT STRESS FROM BOTH DROUGHT AND HIGH WATER" (which makes no damned sense?) yet, the anglers continue to catch and release these fish anyway? Help me understand what is *really* going on here. TBone |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
typed:
daytripper wrote: http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376 Discuss. Something I would like to get clear before I make up myu mind on this. From this article from the Burlington Free Press: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=4 "In addition, the stocked rainbows would probably crowd out the wild fish as they compete for the few hiding places. That's the last thing the wild trout need or deserve. Finally, the river and its wildlife are already under great stress from both drought and high water. This is not the time to increase the pressure on the river's overall health or the fish trying to survive there." So let me get this absolutely straight. The anglers are, at once, concerned that the stocked rainbow would stress the wild trout and it's also suggested that the wild trout are under "GREAT STRESS FROM BOTH DROUGHT AND HIGH WATER" (which makes no damned sense?) yet, the anglers continue to catch and release these fish anyway? Help me understand what is *really* going on here. Here's what's going on (reprinted from alt.flyfishing): I did notice that you showed back up at ROFF, after saying your good-byes a few weeks back? Op Nothing more than going back and trolling in the easy holes. Satsifies my jones a little while we get our community established here. Your pal, TBone -- TL, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Tim J. wrote: typed: daytripper wrote: http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376 Discuss. Something I would like to get clear before I make up myu mind on this. From this article from the Burlington Free Press: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=4 "In addition, the stocked rainbows would probably crowd out the wild fish as they compete for the few hiding places. That's the last thing the wild trout need or deserve. Finally, the river and its wildlife are already under great stress from both drought and high water. This is not the time to increase the pressure on the river's overall health or the fish trying to survive there." So let me get this absolutely straight. The anglers are, at once, concerned that the stocked rainbow would stress the wild trout and it's also suggested that the wild trout are under "GREAT STRESS FROM BOTH DROUGHT AND HIGH WATER" (which makes no damned sense?) yet, the anglers continue to catch and release these fish anyway? Help me understand what is *really* going on here. Here's what's going on (reprinted from alt.flyfishing): I did notice that you showed back up at ROFF, after saying your good-byes a few weeks back? Op Nothing more than going back and trolling in the easy holes. Satsifies my jones a little while we get our community established here. Your pal, TBone -- TL, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj The Walmart article was an easy hole. This is not an easy hole, by any stretch of the imagination. I might even (3) putt on this one. I have also mailed another letter to Vermont F&G asking about the stress of catch and release on trout that are greatly stressed by draught, relative to the stress of 1,000 additional fish and where the 'sincerity' about the health of the population was. TBone Guilt replaced the creel. |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
wrote in message ps.com... ...'sincerity'... I don't think that word means what you think it means. Dumbass. Wolfgang |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Wolfgang wrote: wrote in message ps.com... ...'sincerity'... I don't think that word means what you think it means. Dumbass. Wolfgang When hit squarely between the eyes with inescapable logic the best this group can muster is invectives and ad hominem attacks. Time and time again. I can't believe this one though. This is almost as bad as the pseudo conservation crap surrounding the Frying Pan releases to save the endangered species on the lower Colorado. When the CDOW demanded higher flows to prevent the extinction of fish, the fly shops, educators of "all wild things to be conserved" cried "but we can't fish in the higher flows". And so it was. Then the mudslide covered the gravel and the only thing that would bring the hatches back was a flood release from Reudi. And so it was. Good grief. 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.
wrote in message oups.com... Wolfgang wrote: wrote in message ps.com... ...'sincerity'... I don't think that word means what you think it means. Dumbass. Wolfgang When hit squarely between the eyes with inescapable logic the best this group can muster is invectives and ad hominem attacks. Time and time again. Ad hominem arguments take the form of: 1. Timmy says blah blah. 2. Timmy is a dumbass. 3. Thus, blah blah is false. You see the problem? You have seen to it that no one here has any reason to give a damn what your position and supporting arguments are. Therefore, pointing out that you are a dumbass cannot be an ad hominem argument. I can't believe this one though. This is almost as bad as the pseudo conservation crap surrounding the Frying Pan releases to save the endangered species on the lower Colorado. When the CDOW demanded higher flows to prevent the extinction of fish, the fly shops, educators of "all wild things to be conserved" cried "but we can't fish in the higher flows". And so it was. Then the mudslide covered the gravel and the only thing that would bring the hatches back was a flood release from Reudi. And so it was. Dumbass. Good grief. Halfordian Golfer It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout. Idiot. Wolfgang |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Wolfgang wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Wolfgang wrote: wrote in message ps.com... ...'sincerity'... I don't think that word means what you think it means. Dumbass. Wolfgang When hit squarely between the eyes with inescapable logic the best this group can muster is invectives and ad hominem attacks. Time and time again. Ad hominem arguments take the form of: 1. Timmy says blah blah. 2. Timmy is a dumbass. 3. Thus, blah blah is false. You see the problem? You have seen to it that no one here has any reason to give a damn what your position and supporting arguments are. Therefore, pointing out that you are a dumbass cannot be an ad hominem argument. I can't believe this one though. This is almost as bad as the pseudo conservation crap surrounding the Frying Pan releases to save the endangered species on the lower Colorado. When the CDOW demanded higher flows to prevent the extinction of fish, the fly shops, educators of "all wild things to be conserved" cried "but we can't fish in the higher flows". And so it was. Then the mudslide covered the gravel and the only thing that would bring the hatches back was a flood release from Reudi. And so it was. Dumbass. Good grief. Halfordian Golfer It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout. Idiot. Wolfgang **** you. |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
wrote in message oups.com... **** you. Which is simply a paraphrase of exactly what you have been saying to everyone in this newsgroup for years. And......what?......you thought nobody got it? :) Wolfgang mother siebeneich never raised such a foolish child. |
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: "In addition, the stocked rainbows would probably crowd out the wild fish as they compete for the few hiding places. That's the last thing the wild trout need or deserve. Finally, the river and its wildlife are already under great stress from both drought and high water. This is not the time to increase the pressure on the river's overall health or the fish trying to survive there." So let me get this absolutely straight. The anglers are, at once, concerned that the stocked rainbow would stress the wild trout and it's also suggested that the wild trout are under "GREAT STRESS FROM BOTH DROUGHT AND HIGH WATER" (which makes no damned sense?) Actually, it does. It is possible to have a flood followed by drought in the same year. yet, the anglers continue to catch and release these fish anyway? Yeah, they should just catch and kill them. That would solve the problem. Help me understand what is *really* going on here. I think we all understand what's going on here. Chuck Vance (what's the matter ... not getting any bites on the other newsgroup?) Of course you can have floods and droughts in the same year. We have them *every* year in Colorado. It's called run-off and the fish manage just fine, even in the worst of it. 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. 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 oups.com... Conan The Librarian wrote: wrote: "In addition, the stocked rainbows would probably crowd out the wild fish as they compete for the few hiding places. That's the last thing the wild trout need or deserve. Finally, the river and its wildlife are already under great stress from both drought and high water. This is not the time to increase the pressure on the river's overall health or the fish trying to survive there." So let me get this absolutely straight. The anglers are, at once, concerned that the stocked rainbow would stress the wild trout and it's also suggested that the wild trout are under "GREAT STRESS FROM BOTH DROUGHT AND HIGH WATER" (which makes no damned sense?) Actually, it does. It is possible to have a flood followed by drought in the same year. yet, the anglers continue to catch and release these fish anyway? Yeah, they should just catch and kill them. That would solve the problem. Help me understand what is *really* going on here. I think we all understand what's going on here. Chuck Vance (what's the matter ... not getting any bites on the other newsgroup?) Of course you can have floods and droughts in the same year. We have them *every* year in Colorado. It's called run-off and the fish manage just fine, even in the worst of it. 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. Halfordian Golfer A cash flow runs through it. Hee, hee, hee. You missed it. :) Dumbass. Wolfgang hee, hee, hee. |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Wolfgang wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Conan The Librarian wrote: wrote: "In addition, the stocked rainbows would probably crowd out the wild fish as they compete for the few hiding places. That's the last thing the wild trout need or deserve. Finally, the river and its wildlife are already under great stress from both drought and high water. This is not the time to increase the pressure on the river's overall health or the fish trying to survive there." So let me get this absolutely straight. The anglers are, at once, concerned that the stocked rainbow would stress the wild trout and it's also suggested that the wild trout are under "GREAT STRESS FROM BOTH DROUGHT AND HIGH WATER" (which makes no damned sense?) Actually, it does. It is possible to have a flood followed by drought in the same year. yet, the anglers continue to catch and release these fish anyway? Yeah, they should just catch and kill them. That would solve the problem. Help me understand what is *really* going on here. I think we all understand what's going on here. Chuck Vance (what's the matter ... not getting any bites on the other newsgroup?) Of course you can have floods and droughts in the same year. We have them *every* year in Colorado. It's called run-off and the fish manage just fine, even in the worst of it. 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. Halfordian Golfer A cash flow runs through it. Hee, hee, hee. You missed it. :) Dumbass. Wolfgang hee, hee, hee. The reason a comprehensive management plan is in place in Colorado is that a lot of people, people who pay license fees, fish for stocked trout. In the article below it is a ratio of 25:1. That is 25 times more anglers fish for stocked rather than streambred. This is critically important to understand and vitally important to the thread of this conversation. While I am still awaiting word from the Vermont F&G, it's pretty clear that a minor tactic is in play here and that is, by bringing people to the Battenkill for an opportunity to catch a rainbow trout with something approaching a reasonable per-hour catch rate people, they will spend money, fall in love with the place and this, then to be translated in to revenue from licenses to support education and habitat restoration for sustainable management. Rivers need friends and the SIG that is the small group of Batenkill anglers, is, obviously not enough to protect it. To wit, it seems, 1/25th of the fishing population is acting like they have exclusivity to this river and controlling it's fate for everyone else. I could be wrong, but I believe that these are the same people that hold competitions on these rivers in the name of 'conservation' and who will catch and release fish despite the fact that they are already stressed to the critical point and beyond. The one bankside owner from earlier in this thread says "If they stock rainbow trout than I won't help improve the habitat". Think about that for a critical second. We are supposed to side with and believe that this man is sincere about conservation when he will not improve the habitat for the sake of improving the habitat alone? Nor will he listen to the biologists and fisheries managers that have a comprehensive plan for it? This is why I humbly and respectfully suggest that flyfishing elitism is actually harming the fishery and preventing a real solution. I can only imagine the same anglers that are moaning now standing there with one of these rainbow trout holdovers in a couple of years, standing there with a 5 pound rainbow, that went in to the backing, grinning from ear to ear. All of these fish were stocked at one time or another. The article and relevent snippet is below my .sig TBone A cash flow runs through it _____________________________________ From: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_466910.html Right now, though, anglers aren't targeting wild trout, at least not in numbers comparable to those fishing for stocked trout. A study carried out by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and Penn State revealed that anglers fish for stocked trout about 25 times more often than they do for wild trout. Survey crews questioned anglers along 30 randomly selected stocked trout streams in the spring of 2005. According to the report resulting from that work, anglers made an estimated 2,124,821 trips to stocked trout streams during the first eight weeks of the season. They caught an estimated 6,770,094 fish -- twice as many as were stocked -- which reflects the fact that anglers are releasing fish to be caught again and that that there are wild trout in about 50 percent of the streams that get stocked. Based on the results of this study, angling on stocked trout streams contributed more than $65.7 million to Pennsylvania's economy during the first eight weeks of the regular trout season in 2005, the study concludes. Angling on stocked trout streams also supported 1,119 jobs in Pennsylvania. |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
wrote in message oups.com... ...it's pretty clear that a minor tactic is in play here... Right. That's exactly what Chuck said. Dumbass. Wolfgang |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
GM wrote in :
It seems to be a warped kind of democracy in that the locals want something and the state feels obliged to give it to them, to hell with the science. Well, that would be exactly a democracy. The locals feel, for some reason, that their immediate needs are more important than the science, and the Conservation appointees, responding to their elected bosses, act accordingly. FWIW, my impression is that 1,000 trout is not a whole lot for that river, and the fact that the state is using sterilized trout is a HUGE concession that not many states would bother with. They really don't need to do that. They can do whatever the hell they want to do, and it sounds to me like they're trying to be somewhat sensitive to everybody's needs and wants 1,000 sterile rainbows is not going to make the population of the Battenkill crash overnight. IMO, the best course of action is to make su a) the fish really are sterile. You need to know the efficacy of the sterilization program. Even a small percentage of nonsterile fish will lead to hybridization problems. You need to make sure that both sexes are sterilized. Get a number on that-- they know it, but they might not be telling it to you. Once you have the number, spread it around. b) proper assessments are in place to determine if the stocking is hurting the wild brown trout population. The "it couldn't help" argument is not going to get you very far. What you need to do is make sure that the program is stopped if the brown trout population is being demonstrably hurt. This means designing the experiments and do the electroshocks now. You also need to make sure that MONEY and PERSONNEL are in place to do the future studies, and that there is a real state commitment to stopping the program if it demonstrably hurts. Get the goals for the brown trout population set in place. Get the state to say "we intend to stop the stocking program if ...." and behind the "if", you need realizable and realistic assessments, and reasonable growth of the brown trout population. Hybridization should be at the top of that list for turning the program off. I think you'll actually be surprised if you work to define the constraints and off-switch for the program with the state, instead of digging your heels in and saying "not in my lifetime, dammit". For one thing, for the state to not define an off switch for the program when asked to is sort of like saying "we don't care about the wild brown trout". They probably don't want to look like they're saying it, and they probably do care about the browns, in any case. The opposition would look much more reasonable, saying "let's find a way to make sure it stops if we determine its hurting the browns" than "well, it might hurt the browns, so lets not do it"-- and it will probably end up being done, in any case. If it turns out to be a successful program, and the browns and the rainbows can lie down together, all the better. If they can't, well the stops will be in place before fish number 1 is stocked. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
Wolfgang wrote: wrote in message oups.com... ...it's pretty clear that a minor tactic is in play here... Right. That's exactly what Chuck said. Dumbass. Wolfgang I wonder how many people would wade in and contribute to an intelligent discussion of difficult subjects such as this if you weren't such an insufferable asshole. One thing is for sure, your venomous attacks are not constrained to me. The posts go on and on about people pleading with you to knock it off. I've been on ROFF longer than you've had an internet connection and, in very large measure might be the longest posting individual here. I remember posting post upon post to get the activity up in the early days and I can't count more than a very, very few times where people asked me to cease, this despite taking non-conventional points of view on difficult subject matter. I asked you, man-to-man, to respectfully knock it off and you did not. You lack the basic integrity of a gentleman and you contribute not an iota to this forum. TBone |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
daytripper wrote: http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376 Discuss. 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. Hopefully, the discussion has been generative to date but I'd love to see some real discussion around the salient points raised. I think there'd be a great deal of collective understanding. Halfordian Golfer Guild replaced the creel. |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
On 21 Aug 2006 14:39:16 -0700, wrote:
daytripper wrote: http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376 Discuss. 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. Hopefully, the discussion has been generative to date but I'd love to see some real discussion around the salient points raised. I think there'd be a great deal of collective understanding. Halfordian Golfer Guild replaced the creel. I've never known those folks to hold back if they had something to say... /daytripper (now watch them show me up ;-) |
To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter