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

"Stan Gula" wrote in message
news:WtrGg.7591$cQ.4817@trndny07...
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.

Technically, not a particularly difficult task.....as you know.
Nevertheless, you do it very well.

That a few find it not just difficult but entirely impossible speaks
directly to the dire need for continuing education. Skeptics might suggest
that this continuing need speaks eloquently to the failure of the program,
but it will not have escaped everyone's notice that Timmy has made a token
effort (in a couple of instances, anyway) to behave like an underanged adult
human being in the past day or so. I maintain that this is not likely the
result of some improved medication regime or pure chance. The work will
continue.

Wolfgang

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

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.

wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:


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.

First you deal with my analysis the situtation you proposed, which
was the main thrust of my post. To wit:

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.)


Chuck Vance

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.
Chuck Vance

I think my original reply, while being, what I would have asked in a
normal conversation, was obtuse and I can see how you could have taken
it wrong.

Specifically -

You suggest that an increase in the fish catch rate per hour by the
introduction of the rainbow trout would be a bad thing because it would
cause increased erosion and degradation of the habitat by the 'meat'
fishermen. I'm not sure I understand this, will you please clarify for
me? As it stands, it seems like there are a actually lot of catch and
release fishermen fishing for longer and more days because it is
unlimited. This is the phenomenon I was citing allegorically with the
Gierach reference and the fact that the fishing pressure under C&R
regulations actually increases with regards to the number of anglers.
It is my humble opinion that this is due to basically (2) factors 1)
The angler who kills a brace and then quits is simply no longer astream
and 2) The anglers seeking out pure C&R fishing do not want to compete
with spin and bait casters. This was the conclusion drawn during the
"Oregon Fly Fishing only regulations" debate of many years ago.

Now, I would certainly favor a flies and lure only regulation, for
common sense reasons, the mortality of a barbed treble hook is about
the same or less than a single barbless hook. This is just a fact.

That C&R was responsible for the comeback is not entirely clear. If,
for example, the regulations were set at 2 browns over 20 inches, for
example, would remove the fish that are contributing negatively to the
maximum yield of the river and allow more fish to 1) survive to grow
beyond a fingerling and 2) obtain than the 15 inch status that
represents a 'good one' there now.

I am also assuming that you are biased against meat fishermen with
regards to the way they 'handle' fish. Assuming this is an issue of
education, the funds raised by the increase in license fees that result
from better per hour catch rate and more exciting fishing would pay for
this education (in addition to the habitat improvement). This is
exactly why I posted the colorado comprehensive plan which was
targeting 17.8% increase in put and take fisheries, for just this
reason.

I did make a mental leap when I summed all of the above up suggesting
that you had a mistrust of the biologists that are making these
recommendations, that have done the studies of carrying capacity,
understand maximum yield, understand how to fund projects on public
resources, rather than basing a decision purely on analogy or emotion.

I still can see no harm to this fishery by placing sterile rainbows in
it and only good. Nobody has made any compelling argument except in
passing reference to the supposed reduced ethical standards of people
setting forth with a lure instead of a fly. That's my take anyway and
the arguments have not been very good, to be frank.

Thanks,

TBone
It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout.

wrote in news:1156263793.244875.32950
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Now, I would certainly favor a flies and lure only regulation, for
common sense reasons, the mortality of a barbed treble hook is about
the same or less than a single barbless hook. This is just a fact.


Can you point to a reference? I can't see how this can be the case, having
experience hooking a fish on both sides of the mouth with a spinner. I
haven't used a treble hook since.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote in news:1156263793.244875.32950
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Now, I would certainly favor a flies and lure only regulation, for
common sense reasons, the mortality of a barbed treble hook is about
the same or less than a single barbless hook. This is just a fact.


Can you point to a reference? I can't see how this can be the case, having
experience hooking a fish on both sides of the mouth with a spinner. I
haven't used a treble hook since.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Hi Scott,

This data is pretty standard and represents the most recent data.

To Wit:
http://www.reellife.co.nz/reellife/1...e_sthland2.asp

and from:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:... ct=clnk&cd=12

While it is (in affect) negligible and consistent in all the studies:

"Treble hooks had lower mortality than single hooks, and barbless hooks
had lower mortality than barbed hooks"

This is thought to be because the treble hook spreads the injury to
more, less lethal, penetration levels.

Please let me know any questions or comments.

TBone
It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout.

daytripper wrote:
On 21 Aug 2006 16:50:41 -0700, wrote:


Jonathan Cook wrote:
DT followed up with "I've never known those folks to hold back
if they had something to say."

I guess I'll explain...

wrote:

daytripper wrote:
http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376

Discuss.

The initial post had a strike against it already, for me.
I like to see the original poster make an intellgent
comment about it, rather than just ask others to spend their
time commenting on it. If it's important to you, why didn't
you give us your position on the matter?

I refer to this as the Musky syndrome :-) After his era, I
usually just ignore URL-with-no-comment posts. Unless they're
flash games ;-)

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

Willi is in AK, Wayno seems to stay away from "discussions",
Bill and Walt are AWOL (?), and I can't speak for Op.

So, I looked at it. One of the main anti-stocking guys quoted
in the articles says he fishes the river 100 days a year. And
he's concerned about the river? I'm with Tim on this one, the
"concern" is all about the impact _other_ people are having
or going to have on the river, but they don't seem to look at
how much they overuse, or wish to overuse, it. If he's so
concerned why doesn't he reduce his days on the water to 10?
If the fish populations are all that fragile and on the edge,
no one should be allowed to fish it 100 days a year. That's
just plain gluttony.

Someone else wrote something like "I think we all know what's
going on here". As males of course we each think we know what's
going on here, but I'd venture that we wouldn't all agree on
it. Tim often goes off a little stranger than I care to be,
but there's no doubt in my mind he's put his finger on one of
the tender spots of our sport, and it smarts a little when he
does that. (Ok, he likes to cut it open, pour salt in it, and
claim the limb is falling off, but hey, it's all a matter of
perspective :-).

Take care,

Jon.

That is the stuff man. Thanks very much Jon.

Daytripper - Jon's right, you just posted the URL and no comment. You
should seed the pros and cons of the discussion as a place of departure
so...what's your take on this issue?

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it

BMAIA, both of you nitwits. I made an on-topic post, a rarity as it is around
here, concerning what appeared to be an interesting subject. It wasn't
intended as a live grenade or a troll. If it drew zero interest, that would
have been fine with me. That it has drawn a bit of interest is fine as well.

And, in spite of the mutual hallucination you and Jon appear to be
experiencing, I was and am under no obligation to provide my thinking on the
subject, in advance or otherwise.

/daytripper (just move along. nothing to see here...yet, anyway...)

That's quite true Daytripper. But, I did ask you, respectfully, for
your take on the issue. It's simply a common courtesy but you're right,
you are under no duty to do so.

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel

In article . com,
says...

Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote in news:1156263793.244875.32950
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Now, I would certainly favor a flies and lure only regulation, for
common sense reasons, the mortality of a barbed treble hook is about
the same or less than a single barbless hook. This is just a fact.


Can you point to a reference? I can't see how this can be the case, having
experience hooking a fish on both sides of the mouth with a spinner. I
haven't used a treble hook since.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Hi Scott,

This data is pretty standard and represents the most recent data.

To Wit:
http://www.reellife.co.nz/reellife/1...e_sthland2.asp

and from:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:... ct=clnk&cd=12

While it is (in affect) negligible and consistent in all the studies:

"Treble hooks had lower mortality than single hooks, and barbless hooks
had lower mortality than barbed hooks"

This is thought to be because the treble hook spreads the injury to
more, less lethal, penetration levels.

Most of the studies that I've seen suggest that treble hooks have lower
mortality due to two effects. 1) They tend to not be used with bait so
are not swallowed. 2) They are larger than single hooks and so tend to
hook in the mouth vs being swallowed.

Barbed vs barbless mortality comes up time and time again as
statistically insignificant. You can decide not to use barbed hooks
due to fear of hooking yourself or someone else, but there's no evidence
that it reduces fish mortality.
- Ken

On 22 Aug 2006 16:08:10 GMT, (Jonathan Cook) wrote:

DT's posts don't show up here, so I have to improvise...

DT wrote:

And, in spite of the mutual hallucination you and Jon appear to be
experiencing, I was and am under no obligation to provide my thinking on the
subject, in advance or otherwise.

Of course you're not. You can do as you please, and others
can respond if they want. All that is fine by me. And if it
turns into the greatest on-topic ROFF thread of all time, I'll
applaud it.

I was just explaining why _I_ don't generally participate in
threads started as such, after you implied that a list of us
aren't known for holding back, which in turn implied that Tim
was out solo with no one sympathizing...

Take care,

Jon.

You're thinking too much - I meant to imply no such conclusion, about your
reasons or anyone else on the list....

/daytripper (still, I *do* think Tim is "out solo" more than not ;-)