![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steve,
Most of California's lakes and streams are capable of natural reproduction. The ones that aren't are usually because man screwed them up with logging, mining, damming, and overgrazing. The Department of Fish and Game spends a huge percentage of their budget on fish hatcheries, but they should be restoring the habitat. There are miles and miles of mountain streams where cattle, sheep and horses have overgrazed the National Forests and trampled the streams into mud, yet nothing is done about it. It wouldn't be difficult or expensive to install electric fences powered by solar batteries to keep the livestock back.from the edges of the streams. There is a stream in Northern California named Yellow Creek by Lake Almanor. I went there and found a shallow stream with small trout. They did an experiment where they fenced the cattle back. I went there again three years after the installation and found a deep clear cold running stream full of big natural trout. There were waist high wild flowers along the stream. It was a joy to see. For some reason our nearsighted Fish and Game and National Forest Service can't see the advantage of having clear running streams with stable banks and clean water with natural reproducing fish. It would beat the hell out of fishing for finless rubber hatchery trout. Ernie slenon" wrote in message I'd be curious to know the exact number of states which have naturally reproducing trout populations. Of that number, how many had to have trout introduced into them to establish that population? Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|