No fish

In message
,
Giles writes
Quite no, Bill.....and kennie. It's a numbers game, and that's a
fact......but it isn't necessarily a simple binary either/or
proposition. If you dump ten thousand three-pound trout in a stream
that is all of three feet wide and a mile or two long, they will
indeed wreak havoc. But three pound fish can't get into some of the
places that three inch natives might. And the bubbas will be along
shortly to hoover most of their brethren out of the stream shortly
anyway. Then again, that isn't really all that realistic scenario, is
it? No, it isn't. But outlining absurd extremes is a useful means of
creeping up on the parameters (yeah, I know the mathematicians claim
that word as their sole property.....tought ****) of a problem or
issue. At the end of the day, making decisions about resource
allocation is a messy and almost always thankless task. And the pros
learn as they go because the situation changes constantly.
Pronouncements about what happens and what does not, about what should
happen and what should not, about what is occurring and what is not,
how it should be dealt with and how not, emanating from rank amateur
observers should, of course, receive all the attention and approbation
that they merit......but, really, not much more than that.

Quite or not quite!

Introducing 3 lbs + trout into an ecology which never did sustain such
monsters is an imbalance of nature. having huge fish available is only
an enticement for the greedy fish hingry anglers. These topes aren't
really interested in the sport of fly fishing, rather they want trophy
fish and that makes them fishmongers ij my book.

By the way, some of the feeder streams of the river are devoid of fly
life due to the indiscriminate use of synthetic pyrethroid sheep dip.
Thus fly life is seriously affected and means less food for the fish.
--
Bill Grey