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

wrote:


Why not invite the Colorado Division of Wildlife to Vermont for a
management roundtable?


Why don't you participate in the thread with something like a level of
sincerity? Why not read what people post and give it more than
millisecond of consideration. Why not look at the meaning of the word
"fix" versus "band-aid".

As far as I can tell the moniker "dumbass" fits well with you.

GM wrote:
wrote:


Why not invite the Colorado Division of Wildlife to Vermont for a
management roundtable?


Why don't you participate in the thread with something like a level of
sincerity? Why not read what people post and give it more than
millisecond of consideration. Why not look at the meaning of the word
"fix" versus "band-aid".

As far as I can tell the moniker "dumbass" fits well with you.

Why not invite the Colorado Division of Wildlife to Vermont for a
management roundtable?

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it

Dave Martel wrote:
"daytripper" wrote in message
...
http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376

Discuss.

No. (Not to the discussion). No to the stocking of sterile Bows to satisfy
the "kill 'em & Grill 'Em" crowd. The Battenkill is a national
treasure....and should be treated accordingly. Correct the habitat problems
and the trout will come back strong.

"Quick Fix" solutions usually cause more problems than they "fix".
Unfortunately...too many fishermen look at the "now".....instead of the
future. Sad, really.

Dave M
PS: Too many fishermen want Bows (a great trout when wild, by the
way)..because they're too ffing stupid to catch Browns. 'Nuff said.

Hi Dave,

We should examine history and the fact that people were initially
opposed to planting the brown trout for precisely this reason and
never forget that it was stocking that created the initial populations
which all existing streambred trout (not wild) originated. It should be
no surprise to anyone that fishing or habitat interest has waned
because browns are tough to fool. As harsh as it is, you could consider
yourself a 'brown trout special interest group' at this point,
exclusionary of the general populace that wants good fishing. This
'bull headedness' might be getting in the way of a compromise that
could be the eventual best solution. If, when people cite reasonable
long term managing tactics (that have proven successful in other
similar situations), the ideas are discarded and the people called
'dumbasses' what hope is there for a real solution? If your answer
really is that the base problem is people are just too ****ing stupid
what is your hope for a real solution?

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

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

Discuss.

I hope to attend the meeting.

It seems to be a warped kind of democracy in that the locals want
something and the state feels obliged to give it to them, to hell with
the science.

Ken Cox, who I have met and regularly provide creel surveys to, sounds
buffoon-like with his "compromise" goal. The decision to stock or not is
a binary thing. At least be honest about it.

I have read studies on the effect of stocking in PA streams that already
hold a head of wild fish. The stocked fish become "delinquent" and
disrupt the feeding patterns of the wild fish. I don't know what success
he alludes to in England. The chalk streams are regularly stocked, but
I thought the UK stocked fingerling trout that CAN reproduce. He could
not be referring to the ghastly Put-and-Take fisheries with their pellet
fed monsters that taste like ****?

Rumor I heard this week is that a landowner who is participating in a
stream side restoration project is going to pull out if the state stocks
the river. This is very bad news, because the lack of stream-side cover
IS the major problem in this river. But there is a lot of emotion around
this issue, make no mistake.

I shared some emails with the Central MA ROFFians earlier this year that
show a 1/2 dozen wild browns all over 15", some a lot more, all caught
in the same morning. This is what this river does produce and if the
resources were spent improving the overall habitat, even the locals
could catch enough to take a few home.

Hi GM,

A couple of points to make.

In my opinion you are suggesting managing the river to optimize what is
there, not what is optimal or desired in the long term. From a pure
management perspective this might not make the most sense. I think your
motivations might be clouded by love, which is understandable. If what
you suggest is precisely the right course than why not improve the
resident bullhead or channel catfish populations? Bullhead are a
delicacy on the table and are probably indiginous to boot. What is your
real reason for protecting the brown trout? That they can exist in
sub-standard conditions? Is sub-standard the goal you are setting for a
long term policy?

You should also know that finishing pellets have been improved greatly
improving the taste of fish raised in farms. All rainbow trout you eat
prepared by chefs in 5 star restaurants are farm-reared rainbow trout
so please don't automatically assume them to be the livery paste of the
past.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

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

Discuss.

Hi Daytripper,

Been working on a discussion here but the personal insults are making
it difficult. I have been trying to provide a perspective that is
rooted in science and sound wildlife management but this seems to be an
emotional issue as much as anything.

In any event I am trying to provide some quality discussion and have
posted suggestions, a reference to colorado management stratagies that
can be applied as well as personal observations. I have avoided
invectives and ad hominem attacks and have stayed on topic.

Today I wrote a letter to the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department to
gauge their take on the situation. The letter is below my .sig.

Hopefully you have found the discussion productive.

Your pal,

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

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am a colorado angler that has become aware of a controversy
surrounding the planting of 1,000 sterile rainbow trout in the
Battenkill. My understanding is that the game and fis department is
promoting the idea as a way to provide a quality angling experience to
increase recruitment to the sport and to provide license revenue to
support research and habitat improvement projects. I also understand
that there is concern that this could disrupt the existing brown trout
population through competition in a marginal existing habitat equation.

I write today to ask if you could provide me more information on this
issue so that I can be fully educated and conversant on the subject
matter which is of extreme interest to me.

Thank you very much,

[address omitted]

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

Discuss.

In re-reading the material, it is clear that there is some unknown or
overt concern about the affect of the rainbow trout on the ability if
the stream-bred brown trout with some comparisons made to english chalk
streams. Thought I'd pass along a personal observation that brown and
rainbow trout coexist in colorado nicely, along with whitefish and the
only indiginous trout, the cutt, which all seem to adapt to different
feeding niches. The rainbows at the head of the runs, in the current,
picking off clingers while the browns at the back picking off burrowers
and terrestrials. Colorado streams, especially the high mountain and
high gradient streams are not altogether rich. This is a harse, almost
sterile, cold environment with a very short growth season. There is a
move, albeit a slow one, to eradicte the non-indiginous species in
places where the native cutthroat is the most responsible
'conservation' goal. It will take a diverse management policy to
achieve this long term goal, one which involves stocking catchables to
increase recruitment. Oddly, it is not competition which is the biggest
threat to the indiginous cutthroat but, rather, it is loss of genetic
diversity through hybridization.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it

wrote:
GM wrote:
wrote:


Why not invite the Colorado Division of Wildlife to Vermont for a
management roundtable?


Why don't you participate in the thread with something like a level of
sincerity? Why not read what people post and give it more than
millisecond of consideration. Why not look at the meaning of the word
"fix" versus "band-aid".

As far as I can tell the moniker "dumbass" fits well with you.

Why not invite the Colorado Division of Wildlife to Vermont for a
management roundtable?

Dumbass.

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it

Moron.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang wrote:
wrote:
GM wrote:
wrote:


Why not invite the Colorado Division of Wildlife to Vermont for a
management roundtable?


Why don't you participate in the thread with something like a level of
sincerity? Why not read what people post and give it more than
millisecond of consideration. Why not look at the meaning of the word
"fix" versus "band-aid".

As far as I can tell the moniker "dumbass" fits well with you.

Why not invite the Colorado Division of Wildlife to Vermont for a
management roundtable?

Dumbass.

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it

Moron.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang,

I would like to respectfully ask you to stop with the personal
invectives.

I'd also like to ask the question again:

Why not invite the Colorado Division of Wildlife to Vermont for a
multi-state fisheries management roundtable? Wouldn't it be possible
that a neutral party with a tremendous amount of experience bring a
positive influence with this decision? Wouldn't it be great to compare
strategic and tactical management plans taking the best from both
worlds? Isn't the free exchange of information important to the
resolution of any difficult multi-use decision such as this? I think
I'll propose it if the Vermont F&G return my inquiry.

Thank you,

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel

wrote:
Wolfgang wrote:
Dumbass.
...
Moron.

Wolfgang,

I would like to respectfully ask you to stop with the personal
invectives. ...

LOL !!

You're talking about the vast majority of Little Wolfie's
roff posts and 100% of his entertainment value.

Better to stick him in your bozo bin than to deprive the
rest of us our comedy.

--
Ken Fortenberry

wrote:



Wolfgang,

Yes?

I would like to respectfully ask you to stop with the personal
invectives.

Well then, go ahead and ask.

I'd also like to ask the question again:

Be my guest..

Why not invite the Colorado Division of Wildlife to Vermont for a
multi-state fisheries management roundtable?

Well, it's none of my business, really. Why don't YOU invite the
Colorado Division of Wildlife to Vermont for a multi-state fisheries
roundtable?

Wouldn't it be possible
that a neutral party with a tremendous amount of experience bring a
positive influence with this decision?

You flatter me. Anyway, as I already stated, it's really none of my
business.

Wouldn't it be great to compare
strategic and tactical management plans taking the best from both
worlds?

Couldn't say. I have no more idea of what laws, physical or otherwise,
pertain in your world than you do.

Isn't the free exchange of information important to the
resolution of any difficult multi-use decision such as this?

Isn't that what I've been telling you for the past several years? It
would do your position a world of good if you were first to find out
what it is......and then find some information and bring it to the
table........maybe. Frankly, what minuscule credibility you may once
have had before I became aware of your existence, you squandered a long
time ago.

I think

See, that's precisely the trouble.....you don't.

I'll propose it if the Vermont F&G return my inquiry.

Have fun.

Thank you,

Dumbass.

Halfordian Golfer

Do you even remember your name?

Guilt replaced the creel

You STILL haven't found anyone to explain the meaning of that cretinous
phrase to you?

Wolfgang