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

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

Discuss.

Absolutely stock the rainbows. It's the brown trout that anyone
claiming to care about this issue should be worried about. Nobody
responded to the research of August 23rd but a snippet of this (below)
is very, very compelling.

"brown trout were involved in more inter- and intraspecific agonistic
events, initiated 92%
of observed attacks, and displaced the greenback cutthroat trout from
energetically profitable sites in pools and near food sources.This
finding supports the policy of eradicating brown trout (and other
nonindigenous fishes) from streams
managed to preserve or restore greenback and other subspecies of
cutthroat trout."

Your pal,

TBone

wrote in news:1156442966.081828.194450
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:


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

Discuss.

Absolutely stock the rainbows. It's the brown trout that anyone
claiming to care about this issue should be worried about. Nobody
responded to the research of August 23rd but a snippet of this (below)
is very, very compelling.

"brown trout were involved in more inter- and intraspecific agonistic
events, initiated 92%
of observed attacks, and displaced the greenback cutthroat trout from
energetically profitable sites in pools and near food sources.This
finding supports the policy of eradicating brown trout (and other
nonindigenous fishes) from streams
managed to preserve or restore greenback and other subspecies of
cutthroat trout."

Your pal,

TBone



In some ways, it might be more harmful to stock sterile rainbows than
intact ones.

If the rainbows displace the browns, then die, there's no more fish. If
rainbows can reproduce, then at least there would be a real competition
for the resource. Given a generation of fish, the rainbows would be
every bit as "wild" as the brownies in there right now, and, in fact,
every bit as "native".

It's not like we're talking about displacing brookies.

Push comes to shove, I still think that 1,000 sterile fish is next to
nothing for that watershed. They'll be placed where people can get at
them. They'll be easy picking, and 95% of them will likely be removed
within days of their planting.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply
(Feeling rather existential today)

Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote in news:1156442966.081828.194450
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:


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

Discuss.

Absolutely stock the rainbows. It's the brown trout that anyone
claiming to care about this issue should be worried about. Nobody
responded to the research of August 23rd but a snippet of this (below)
is very, very compelling.

"brown trout were involved in more inter- and intraspecific agonistic
events, initiated 92%
of observed attacks, and displaced the greenback cutthroat trout from
energetically profitable sites in pools and near food sources.This
finding supports the policy of eradicating brown trout (and other
nonindigenous fishes) from streams
managed to preserve or restore greenback and other subspecies of
cutthroat trout."

Your pal,

TBone



In some ways, it might be more harmful to stock sterile rainbows than
intact ones.

If the rainbows displace the browns, then die, there's no more fish. If
rainbows can reproduce, then at least there would be a real competition
for the resource. Given a generation of fish, the rainbows would be
every bit as "wild" as the brownies in there right now, and, in fact,
every bit as "native".

It's not like we're talking about displacing brookies.

Push comes to shove, I still think that 1,000 sterile fish is next to
nothing for that watershed. They'll be placed where people can get at
them. They'll be easy picking, and 95% of them will likely be removed
within days of their planting.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply
(Feeling rather existential today)

From a biological perspective this is absolutely right. Moreover from
the same Aug23rd article.

"In his study, Tzilkowski, a long-time trout fisherman, is focusing on
brown trout because rainbow trout rarely establish breeding
populations. Brown trout, on the other hand, spawn in Pennsylvania
streams and wild populations are common. It is not unusual for wild
browns and brook trout to coexist in the same headwater stream. The
wild brook trout likely have been there for thousands of years; the
wild browns are descendants of stocked fish that were able to survive
and reproduce.

Fact is, the browns are for more serious of threat to the natural
biology of the Battenkill. This is just plain old science.

"Brown trout eat a lot of brook trout"

Is it possible...is it possible that the brook trout would be thriving
if it weren't for the brown trout?

Then you see this...
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...plate=printart

---------------------------
"The 'Kill has been managed exclusively for wild brook and brown trout
since the mid-1970s when the last hatchery truck paid a visit to the
banks of the storied river. Now our fisheries biologists are
recommending the river get a dose of rainbow trout -- 1,000 of them, to
be precise -- just to give those anglers who are bellyaching about the
poor fishing on the Battenkill something to hook and cook.

You can't make this stuff up."
-----------------------------

I agree.

The irony is absolutely sublime.

Stock the rainbows, but don't stop with triploids. Maybe they'll
establish a wild trout population and in 30 years nobody will give a
rip about the browns.

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it

wrote:

[snip of same old tired stuff]

Is it possible...is it possible that the brook trout would be thriving
if it weren't for the brown trout?

Then you see this...
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...plate=printart

---------------------------
"The 'Kill has been managed exclusively for wild brook and brown trout
since the mid-1970s when the last hatchery truck paid a visit to the
banks of the storied river. Now our fisheries biologists are
recommending the river get a dose of rainbow trout -- 1,000 of them, to
be precise -- just to give those anglers who are bellyaching about the
poor fishing on the Battenkill something to hook and cook.

You can't make this stuff up."
-----------------------------

I agree.

The irony is absolutely sublime.

Stock the rainbows, but don't stop with triploids. Maybe they'll
establish a wild trout population and in 30 years nobody will give a
rip about the browns.

So because it's possible they made a mistake in stocking browns, you
think they should compound that mistake by stocking another non-native
species.

Talk about yer irony.


Chuck Vance

Conan The Librarian wrote in
:

So because it's possible they made a mistake in stocking browns,
you
think they should compound that mistake by stocking another non-native
species.

Talk about yer irony.


Chuck Vance


I don't seem to be drawing much criticism for saying much the same
thing, so I'll just keep going.

I think Vermont has come up with a very interesting way to try to keep
the meat fishermen happy while trying to protect a wild population. I'd
venture that its worth a shot, so long as the mechanisms are in place to
figure out relatively quickly that its not working out, and kill the
program.

A thousand fish aren't a heck of a lot for a resource that size.
They'll likely be stocked AWAY from the good cover, and be pulled out of
the water almost as soon as they're put in. In fact, the die hards for
wild management would probably find it easier-- and maybe more fun -- to
organize an event to MAKE SURE these fish are pulled out quickly than to
try to keep it from happening.

Personally, even if I wanted to keep it from happening, I'd still take
the approach of making sure the stops are in place, and then when it
became perfectly clear that Vermont doesn't have the resources to make
sure the program isn't causing damage, you'll have very compelling ammo
to kill the program before it starts. You'll garner much more support
this way, as you'll sound a whole bunch more reasonable.



--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

did you know you can get your boating licence at
www.boatinglicence.com.au for info in Sydney

it is a great place to get the licence.