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