![]() |
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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
So the other day my daughter & I kept three fish for dinner. For those
of you aghast at my political incorrectness, I offer no apology. FWIW, these were not wild fish. Indeed, we were so close to the hatchery it'd be embarrassing for me to fish there without my daughter. Two of the trout had white flesh while the third had orange/pink flesh. Not as pink as the (landlocked) Dolly Varden I used to catch in Alaska, but distinctly _not_ white. Coincidentally, the 'orange' fish had a belly full of bugs while the two 'white' fish had very little in their stomachs. My assumption, and I'd like to think the obvious one, is that the 'orange' fish had been in the creek substantially longer than the 'white' fish. Long enough to learn how to eat and even thrive in the wild. OTOH, I figure that the 'white' fish were relatively new to the stream and hadn't figured out how to eat & thrive in the creek. Now I'm wondering about the lack of survival skills in hatchery fish. How many of them fail to thrive in the wild because they don't know how/what to eat? Could this be part of the problem with the low success rate of fish restoration projects like the one Stan Gula was working on with Salmon in Massachusetts? Does this imply that preservation is even more important because restoration is not an effective possibilty after preservation has failed? Just a thinkin' and wonderin'... Tom G -- email:remove tt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|