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

Tim J. wrote:
typed:
daytripper wrote:
http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376

Discuss.

Something I would like to get clear before I make up myu mind on this.

From this article from the Burlington Free Press:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=4

"In addition, the stocked rainbows would probably crowd out the wild
fish as they compete for the few hiding places. That's the last thing
the wild trout need or deserve.
Finally, the river and its wildlife are already under great stress
from both drought and high water. This is not the time to increase the
pressure on the river's overall health or the fish trying to survive
there."

So let me get this absolutely straight.

The anglers are, at once, concerned that the stocked rainbow would
stress the wild trout and it's also suggested that the wild trout are
under "GREAT STRESS FROM BOTH DROUGHT AND HIGH WATER" (which makes no
damned sense?) yet, the anglers continue to catch and release these
fish anyway?

Help me understand what is *really* going on here.

Here's what's going on (reprinted from alt.flyfishing):
I did notice that you showed back up at ROFF, after saying your good-byes
a
few weeks back?

Op

Nothing more than going back and trolling in the easy holes. Satsifies
my jones a little while we get our community established here.

Your pal,

TBone
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

The Walmart article was an easy hole. This is not an easy hole, by any
stretch of the imagination. I might even (3) putt on this one. I have
also mailed another letter to Vermont F&G asking about the stress of
catch and release on trout that are greatly stressed by draught,
relative to the stress of 1,000 additional fish and where the
'sincerity' about the health of the population was.

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.

wrote in message
ps.com...

...'sincerity'...

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Dumbass.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...

...'sincerity'...

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Dumbass.

Wolfgang

When hit squarely between the eyes with inescapable logic the best this
group can muster is invectives and ad hominem attacks. Time and time
again.

I can't believe this one though. This is almost as bad as the pseudo
conservation crap surrounding the Frying Pan releases to save the
endangered species on the lower Colorado. When the CDOW demanded higher
flows to prevent the extinction of fish, the fly shops, educators of
"all wild things to be conserved" cried "but we can't fish in the
higher flows". And so it was. Then the mudslide covered the gravel and
the only thing that would bring the hatches back was a flood release
from Reudi. And so it was.

Good grief.

Halfordian Golfer
It is impossible to catch and release a wild trout.

"Tim J." wrote in message
...

If I was ****ing with Timmy W., what exactly were you doing with him?

Op

Mr. Opus McDopus typed:
"Tim J." wrote in message
...

If I was ****ing with Timmy W., what exactly were you doing with him?

My point on the NGTSNBN was that you and Tim are the only ones posting
there, and that has just been a ****ing match. I don't recall going tit
for tat with Tim and have no intention of doing so.
--
TL,
Tim
---------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

wrote:

"In addition, the stocked rainbows would probably crowd out the wild
fish as they compete for the few hiding places. That's the last thing
the wild trout need or deserve.
Finally, the river and its wildlife are already under great stress from
both drought and high water. This is not the time to increase the
pressure on the river's overall health or the fish trying to survive
there."

So let me get this absolutely straight.

The anglers are, at once, concerned that the stocked rainbow would
stress the wild trout and it's also suggested that the wild trout are
under "GREAT STRESS FROM BOTH DROUGHT AND HIGH WATER" (which makes no
damned sense?)

Actually, it does. It is possible to have a flood followed by
drought in the same year.

yet, the anglers continue to catch and release these
fish anyway?

Yeah, they should just catch and kill them. That would solve the
problem.

Help me understand what is *really* going on here.

I think we all understand what's going on here.


Chuck Vance (what's the matter ... not getting any bites on the
other newsgroup?)

Conan The Librarian wrote:
wrote:

"In addition, the stocked rainbows would probably crowd out the wild
fish as they compete for the few hiding places. That's the last thing
the wild trout need or deserve.
Finally, the river and its wildlife are already under great stress from
both drought and high water. This is not the time to increase the
pressure on the river's overall health or the fish trying to survive
there."

So let me get this absolutely straight.

The anglers are, at once, concerned that the stocked rainbow would
stress the wild trout and it's also suggested that the wild trout are
under "GREAT STRESS FROM BOTH DROUGHT AND HIGH WATER" (which makes no
damned sense?)

Actually, it does. It is possible to have a flood followed by
drought in the same year.

yet, the anglers continue to catch and release these
fish anyway?

Yeah, they should just catch and kill them. That would solve the
problem.

Help me understand what is *really* going on here.

I think we all understand what's going on here.


Chuck Vance (what's the matter ... not getting any bites on the
other newsgroup?)

Of course you can have floods and droughts in the same year. We have
them *every* year in Colorado. It's called run-off and the fish manage
just fine, even in the worst of it. Fishing in drought or warm water
conditions, however, is another thing altogether, when the only
responible thing to do is to quit fishing entirely. Of course the
majority of guides and fly shops won't do that, even here, and the
corpses of hundreds of trouts littering the Roaring Fork, for example,
on a summer day are mute testimonies to this fact.

What is going on here is flyfishing elitism on the Battenkill.

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Conan The Librarian wrote:
wrote:

"In addition, the stocked rainbows would probably crowd out the wild
fish as they compete for the few hiding places. That's the last thing
the wild trout need or deserve.
Finally, the river and its wildlife are already under great stress from
both drought and high water. This is not the time to increase the
pressure on the river's overall health or the fish trying to survive
there."

So let me get this absolutely straight.

The anglers are, at once, concerned that the stocked rainbow would
stress the wild trout and it's also suggested that the wild trout are
under "GREAT STRESS FROM BOTH DROUGHT AND HIGH WATER" (which makes no
damned sense?)

Actually, it does. It is possible to have a flood followed by
drought in the same year.

yet, the anglers continue to catch and release these
fish anyway?

Yeah, they should just catch and kill them. That would solve the
problem.

Help me understand what is *really* going on here.

I think we all understand what's going on here.


Chuck Vance (what's the matter ... not getting any bites on the
other newsgroup?)

Of course you can have floods and droughts in the same year. We have
them *every* year in Colorado. It's called run-off and the fish manage
just fine, even in the worst of it. Fishing in drought or warm water
conditions, however, is another thing altogether, when the only
responible thing to do is to quit fishing entirely. Of course the
majority of guides and fly shops won't do that, even here, and the
corpses of hundreds of trouts littering the Roaring Fork, for example,
on a summer day are mute testimonies to this fact.

What is going on here is flyfishing elitism on the Battenkill.

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it.

Hee, hee, hee.

You missed it.

Dumbass.

Wolfgang
hee, hee, hee.

Wolfgang wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Conan The Librarian wrote:
wrote:

"In addition, the stocked rainbows would probably crowd out the wild
fish as they compete for the few hiding places. That's the last thing
the wild trout need or deserve.
Finally, the river and its wildlife are already under great stress from
both drought and high water. This is not the time to increase the
pressure on the river's overall health or the fish trying to survive
there."

So let me get this absolutely straight.

The anglers are, at once, concerned that the stocked rainbow would
stress the wild trout and it's also suggested that the wild trout are
under "GREAT STRESS FROM BOTH DROUGHT AND HIGH WATER" (which makes no
damned sense?)

Actually, it does. It is possible to have a flood followed by
drought in the same year.

yet, the anglers continue to catch and release these
fish anyway?

Yeah, they should just catch and kill them. That would solve the
problem.

Help me understand what is *really* going on here.

I think we all understand what's going on here.


Chuck Vance (what's the matter ... not getting any bites on the
other newsgroup?)

Of course you can have floods and droughts in the same year. We have
them *every* year in Colorado. It's called run-off and the fish manage
just fine, even in the worst of it. Fishing in drought or warm water
conditions, however, is another thing altogether, when the only
responible thing to do is to quit fishing entirely. Of course the
majority of guides and fly shops won't do that, even here, and the
corpses of hundreds of trouts littering the Roaring Fork, for example,
on a summer day are mute testimonies to this fact.

What is going on here is flyfishing elitism on the Battenkill.

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it.

Hee, hee, hee.

You missed it.

Dumbass.

Wolfgang
hee, hee, hee.

The reason a comprehensive management plan is in place in Colorado is
that a lot of people, people who pay license fees, fish for stocked
trout. In the article below it is a ratio of 25:1. That is 25 times
more anglers fish for stocked rather than streambred. This is
critically important to understand and vitally important to the thread
of this conversation. While I am still awaiting word from the Vermont
F&G, it's pretty clear that a minor tactic is in play here and that is,
by bringing people to the Battenkill for an opportunity to catch a
rainbow trout with something approaching a reasonable per-hour catch
rate people, they will spend money, fall in love with the place and
this, then to be translated in to revenue from licenses to support
education and habitat restoration for sustainable management. Rivers
need friends and the SIG that is the small group of Batenkill anglers,
is, obviously not enough to protect it.

To wit, it seems, 1/25th of the fishing population is acting like they
have exclusivity to this river and controlling it's fate for everyone
else. I could be wrong, but I believe that these are the same people
that hold competitions on these rivers in the name of 'conservation'
and who will catch and release fish despite the fact that they are
already stressed to the critical point and beyond.

The one bankside owner from earlier in this thread says "If they stock
rainbow trout than I won't help improve the habitat". Think about that
for a critical second. We are supposed to side with and believe that
this man is sincere about conservation when he will not improve the
habitat for the sake of improving the habitat alone? Nor will he listen
to the biologists and fisheries managers that have a comprehensive plan
for it?

This is why I humbly and respectfully suggest that flyfishing elitism
is actually harming the fishery and preventing a real solution. I can
only imagine the same anglers that are moaning now standing there with
one of these rainbow trout holdovers in a couple of years, standing
there with a 5 pound rainbow, that went in to the backing, grinning
from ear to ear. All of these fish were stocked at one time or another.


The article and relevent snippet is below my .sig

TBone
A cash flow runs through it
_____________________________________
From:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_466910.html

Right now, though, anglers aren't targeting wild trout, at least not in
numbers comparable to those fishing for stocked trout. A study carried
out by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and Penn State
revealed that anglers fish for stocked trout about 25 times more often
than they do for wild trout.

Survey crews questioned anglers along 30 randomly selected stocked
trout streams in the spring of 2005. According to the report resulting
from that work, anglers made an estimated 2,124,821 trips to stocked
trout streams during the first eight weeks of the season. They caught
an estimated 6,770,094 fish -- twice as many as were stocked -- which
reflects the fact that anglers are releasing fish to be caught again
and that that there are wild trout in about 50 percent of the streams
that get stocked.

Based on the results of this study, angling on stocked trout streams
contributed more than $65.7 million to Pennsylvania's economy during
the first eight weeks of the regular trout season in 2005, the study
concludes. Angling on stocked trout streams also supported 1,119 jobs
in Pennsylvania.

wrote:

Of course you can have floods and droughts in the same year.

That's what I said. You said the statement made no sense.

We have
them *every* year in Colorado. It's called run-off and the fish manage
just fine, even in the worst of it.

And we have them all the time down here in Texas. And it's not from
runoff ... well, in a sense it is, it's from limsetone streambeds.

Fishing in drought or warm water
conditions, however, is another thing altogether, when the only
responible thing to do is to quit fishing entirely. Of course the
majority of guides and fly shops won't do that, even here, and the
corpses of hundreds of trouts littering the Roaring Fork, for example,
on a summer day are mute testimonies to this fact.

What is going on here is flyfishing elitism on the Battenkill.

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.


Chuck Vance (talk about "a cash flow runs through it")