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

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

...it's pretty clear that a minor tactic is in play here...

Right. That's exactly what Chuck said.

Dumbass.

Wolfgang

I wonder how many people would wade in and contribute to an intelligent
discussion of difficult subjects such as this if you weren't such an
insufferable asshole.

One suspects there is a host of things you SHOULD wonder about. The
trouble is that when one has the answer there is no longer any reason
to wonder.....and one should at least wonder about what question to
apply the answer to.

One thing is for sure, your venomous attacks are
not constrained to me.

Venomous attacks? Have I ever called you an "insufferable asshole?"
Have I ever offered you so much as a single "**** you?" Have I ever
insulted the intelligence of this entire newsgroup for years on end
with an intellectually dishonest (and bankrupt) and never ending stream
of exculpatory twaddle in an effort to rid myself of what is almost
certainly a well-deserved guilt?

Venonous attacks?

You sin't seen nothin'......yet.....Sparky.

The posts go on and on about people pleading
with you to knock it off.

And the hate mongers and mysogynists and misanthropes and racists and
bigots and idiots and liars and killers and dumbasses and self-loathers
go on and on despite my thus far mild requests that they (and yeah,
obviously, this includes you.....in spades) knock it off.

Looks like about a horse apiece to me.

I've been on ROFF longer than you've had an
internet connection

Well, GOLLLLLEEEEE!

and, in very large measure might be the longest
posting individual here. I remember posting post upon post to get the
activity up in the early days

Watching Gods die, I am convinced, wouldn't bother me in the
least.....as long as they did it quiety and with a modicum of
dignity......but listening to them whine just sort of sets my teeth on
edge......know what I mean?

and I can't count more than a very, very
few times where people asked me to cease,

Your memory is as deficient as the rest of what we will generously
refer to as your mental faculties......I've asked you hundreds of
times. Hell, I've probably asked you a dozen times in the last 24
hours.

Various others have asked you in this thread.

You miss all that?

this despite taking
non-conventional points of view on difficult subject matter.

The subject matter wouldn't be nearly so difficult if you had read any
of the hundreds of thoughtful replies that have been offerred in
response to your vapid bull****. Really, you should try it.

I asked you, man-to-man,

Man to man? Hm......

Is it manly to deal with the truth? Let's see, shall we?

to respectfully knock it off and you did not.

O.k., this looks like a good place to start. Tell me, please, what
does "respectfully knock it off" mean?

You lack the basic integrity of a gentleman

This looks like another good test. What, exactly, IS "the basic
integrity of a gentleman"? Remember now, man to man, the truth!

Ah, for the days when you could just send a representative to issue a
challenge and then (after a suitable pause while the seconds arranged
the details) settle the matter with cutlasses at twenty paces, wot?

Take a number.

and you contribute not an iota to
this forum.

Not a single iota? Exactly how big is an iota? I mean, if we're going
to assess the magnitude of my putative contribution to this newsgroup
we should at least have some idea of what the unit of measurement
represents, shouldn't we?

Or, to put it another way, you're a liar.

TBone

Still can't remember your name, huh?

Dumbass.

Wolfgang

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.

For 'tripper, GM, George Adams, TimJ and other locally interested people...
The number of stream systems in New England that are supporting wild
reproducing fish is so small, that we need to make special efforts to
protect them. I support the ongoing efforts to improve habitat on the VT
section of the Battenkill by enhancing the streamside vegetation. It's
unfortunate that the Battenkill is no longer viable for brookies (the feeder
streams are, and I'm sure the main river is used as a connection for the
small streams during runoff) - like most New England streams the loss of
cover on the main river and some of the feeder streams, and loss of
groundwater due to development, we can't expect the water quality or
temperature to improve enough to allow the brookies to return to the main
river, although I would support that as an ultimate goal for any stream in
the northeast. As it is, the brown trout are doing well, even in light of
the recent declines. Reproduction in the feeders is good. We can encourage
the river's recovery by providing more shade and more nutrient load from
vegetation. I think we have the science to know what to do to improve the
habitat and let the population come back on it's own. Stocking rainbows,
even sterile rainbows, will not help the situation.

--
Stan
(awaiting the personal attacks)

Jonathan Cook wrote:
DT followed up with "I've never known those folks to hold back
if they had something to say."

I guess I'll explain...

wrote:

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

Discuss.

The initial post had a strike against it already, for me.
I like to see the original poster make an intellgent
comment about it, rather than just ask others to spend their
time commenting on it. If it's important to you, why didn't
you give us your position on the matter?

I refer to this as the Musky syndrome :-) After his era, I
usually just ignore URL-with-no-comment posts. Unless they're
flash games ;-)

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

Willi is in AK, Wayno seems to stay away from "discussions",
Bill and Walt are AWOL (?), and I can't speak for Op.

So, I looked at it. One of the main anti-stocking guys quoted
in the articles says he fishes the river 100 days a year. And
he's concerned about the river? I'm with Tim on this one, the
"concern" is all about the impact _other_ people are having
or going to have on the river, but they don't seem to look at
how much they overuse, or wish to overuse, it. If he's so
concerned why doesn't he reduce his days on the water to 10?
If the fish populations are all that fragile and on the edge,
no one should be allowed to fish it 100 days a year. That's
just plain gluttony.

Someone else wrote something like "I think we all know what's
going on here". As males of course we each think we know what's
going on here, but I'd venture that we wouldn't all agree on
it. Tim often goes off a little stranger than I care to be,
but there's no doubt in my mind he's put his finger on one of
the tender spots of our sport, and it smarts a little when he
does that. (Ok, he likes to cut it open, pour salt in it, and
claim the limb is falling off, but hey, it's all a matter of
perspective :-).

Take care,

Jon.

That is the stuff man. Thanks very much Jon.

Daytripper - Jon's right, you just posted the URL and no comment. You
should seed the pros and cons of the discussion as a place of departure
so...what's your take on this issue?

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it

Stan Gula wrote:
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.

For 'tripper, GM, George Adams, TimJ and other locally interested people...
The number of stream systems in New England that are supporting wild
reproducing fish is so small, that we need to make special efforts to
protect them. I support the ongoing efforts to improve habitat on the VT
section of the Battenkill by enhancing the streamside vegetation. It's
unfortunate that the Battenkill is no longer viable for brookies (the feeder
streams are, and I'm sure the main river is used as a connection for the
small streams during runoff) - like most New England streams the loss of
cover on the main river and some of the feeder streams, and loss of
groundwater due to development, we can't expect the water quality or
temperature to improve enough to allow the brookies to return to the main
river, although I would support that as an ultimate goal for any stream in
the northeast. As it is, the brown trout are doing well, even in light of
the recent declines. Reproduction in the feeders is good. We can encourage
the river's recovery by providing more shade and more nutrient load from
vegetation. I think we have the science to know what to do to improve the
habitat and let the population come back on it's own. Stocking rainbows,
even sterile rainbows, will not help the situation.

--
Stan
(awaiting the personal attacks)

Stocking the rainbows could very well help, but you have to look at the
overall management strategy and goals to understand how. The way it
helps directly is by providing good, exciting fishing that appeals to
those 25 to 1 anglers that want to catch some fish and, sometimes, to
keep and eat them as well. This in turn increase license sales, tax
revenue, sales revenue, offers up options like the Colorado Habitat
stamp. This, then, is the end game, funds for research, education,
wildlife improvement, public awareness of the issues and more. It
requires some faith but it starts with catching a few fish and I trust
the wildlife managers understand this equation.

Thanks Stan,

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel

wrote in message
ups.com...

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


People are trying to reach a consensus on the best way to help improve a
jewel of a stream that has not been stocked in 30+ years that is under
pressure from a variety of threats. If the issue is habitat restoration and
threat mitigation, then planted fish, in this case rainbows, regardless of
their ability to reproduce in some people's educated mind will create
competition for the born in the stream fish that currently reside there. The
C&R issue is secondary to the issue at hand but you apparently can not
accept that.

If it were up to me and it's not, I'd declare open season on the browns,
continue to work with the various stakeholders to improve the water quality
and the brook trout population. And if I were to stock anything in it, it
would be brookies or browns if they could not be removed. Regardless of
what worked or didn't work in Colorado (I seem to recall them insisting to
dump whirling disease infected rainbows into their stocked water), the
stream conditions are different in the Battenkill. And that's not unique to
the Battenkill. Once you've seen one trout stream, you've seen one trout
stream.

"Tim J." wrote in message
...

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

Op

"Conan The Librarian" wrote in message
...

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

No, but he really enjoys the Spammers, trolls, and morons that post pure
nonsense. Really! He said so himself.

Op

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...


I can't speak for Op.
Take care,

Jon.

I can. I have no interest in the topic at hand, nor any worth while info
that I could impart. I no nothing of the dynamics of this discussion,
beyond that fact that a stream needs water, trout need water, trout need
bugs, streams need to be able to support bugs life to support trout, Tim's
beating a dead horse and I don't like beating dead animals.

Op

On 21 Aug 2006 16:50:41 -0700, wrote:


Jonathan Cook wrote:
DT followed up with "I've never known those folks to hold back
if they had something to say."

I guess I'll explain...

wrote:

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

Discuss.

The initial post had a strike against it already, for me.
I like to see the original poster make an intellgent
comment about it, rather than just ask others to spend their
time commenting on it. If it's important to you, why didn't
you give us your position on the matter?

I refer to this as the Musky syndrome :-) After his era, I
usually just ignore URL-with-no-comment posts. Unless they're
flash games ;-)

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

Willi is in AK, Wayno seems to stay away from "discussions",
Bill and Walt are AWOL (?), and I can't speak for Op.

So, I looked at it. One of the main anti-stocking guys quoted
in the articles says he fishes the river 100 days a year. And
he's concerned about the river? I'm with Tim on this one, the
"concern" is all about the impact _other_ people are having
or going to have on the river, but they don't seem to look at
how much they overuse, or wish to overuse, it. If he's so
concerned why doesn't he reduce his days on the water to 10?
If the fish populations are all that fragile and on the edge,
no one should be allowed to fish it 100 days a year. That's
just plain gluttony.

Someone else wrote something like "I think we all know what's
going on here". As males of course we each think we know what's
going on here, but I'd venture that we wouldn't all agree on
it. Tim often goes off a little stranger than I care to be,
but there's no doubt in my mind he's put his finger on one of
the tender spots of our sport, and it smarts a little when he
does that. (Ok, he likes to cut it open, pour salt in it, and
claim the limb is falling off, but hey, it's all a matter of
perspective :-).

Take care,

Jon.

That is the stuff man. Thanks very much Jon.

Daytripper - Jon's right, you just posted the URL and no comment. You
should seed the pros and cons of the discussion as a place of departure
so...what's your take on this issue?

Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it

BMAIA, both of you nitwits. I made an on-topic post, a rarity as it is around
here, concerning what appeared to be an interesting subject. It wasn't
intended as a live grenade or a troll. If it drew zero interest, that would
have been fine with me. That it has drawn a bit of interest is fine as well.

And, in spite of the mutual hallucination you and Jon appear to be
experiencing, I was and am under no obligation to provide my thinking on the
subject, in advance or otherwise.

/daytripper (just move along. nothing to see here...yet, anyway...)

Stan Gula wrote:
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.

For 'tripper, GM, George Adams, TimJ and other locally interested people...
The number of stream systems in New England that are supporting wild
reproducing fish is so small, that we need to make special efforts to
protect them. I support the ongoing efforts to improve habitat on the VT
section of the Battenkill by enhancing the streamside vegetation. It's
unfortunate that the Battenkill is no longer viable for brookies (the feeder
streams are, and I'm sure the main river is used as a connection for the
small streams during runoff) - like most New England streams the loss of
cover on the main river and some of the feeder streams, and loss of
groundwater due to development, we can't expect the water quality or
temperature to improve enough to allow the brookies to return to the main
river, although I would support that as an ultimate goal for any stream in
the northeast. As it is, the brown trout are doing well, even in light of
the recent declines. Reproduction in the feeders is good. We can encourage
the river's recovery by providing more shade and more nutrient load from
vegetation. I think we have the science to know what to do to improve the
habitat and let the population come back on it's own. Stocking rainbows,



What Stan said.

Unlike some of the people 'discussing' the fate of the Battenkill, I
along with others in the Massachusetts Mafia have actually fished it. I
fished it back in the late sixties and early seventies when it was one
of the best, if not the best wild trout stream in the east. I also
fished it in the late nineties when it was in serious decline. I have
more recently read and heard reports from people I trust, that indicate
the combination of C&R and habitat improvement is bearing fruit. I
understand that there was a very good trico hatch on Saturday, with
fish rising in good numbers.

One of the problems in the last two decades has been a 'cleanup' of the
stream. The productive "sweepers" that provide cover for fish and wood
fiber for insects to feed on, have been removed because they annoy non
fishing users of the river. There has also been bank erosion, and loss
of cover along the banks.

There was a movement toward C&R in the early seventies, and a
comprehensive stream study was done that showed the river could
maintain a good population of wild fish, and still allow harvesting
within reasonable limits. If the restoration effort is continued, it
would seem that, in the future, fish could be harvested, without the
need to stock "catchables". If the Battenkill were the only stream in
the area, I could see some sense in satisfying the locals by stocking
it, but there are several other streams in the area already managed for
put and take. If, in the end, it is stocked, there should be a
regulation in place that all rainbows caught must be kept.

So in answer to the original post.....no, the Battekill should not be
stocked.

As Stan said, fire away.