FishingBanter - View Single Post - To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.

**[email protected]** · August 22nd, 2006, 04:50 PM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly

Conan The Librarian wrote:
wrote:

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.

Ah, so you really didn't intend to discuss any of what I wrote.

It's all clear now, thanks.

Chuck Vance (why don't you head on back to the other newsgroup if
that's all you have in mind

This is *seriously* not accurate.

I summed up what you suggested with a question and a very polite,
thoughtful, response with an allegory. You completely ignored this.

So, assuming this was a legitimate oversight, I'll ask again:

Specifically to your points:

Do you think the biologists at the Vermont F&G are incompetent to make
this fisheries management decision?

That is exactly what you suggested.

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel.