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)