you got the wrong fish

"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 6, 7:19 am, "Wolfgang" wrote:
"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message

ups.com...

From:

http://www.9news.com/news/local/arti...?storyid=76773

DENVER (AP) - A study led by University of Colorado researchers says
an effort to restore the endangered greenback cutthroat trout has been
using the wrong fish for two decades.

That a mistake like this is even possible invites the question of whether
the distinction between the two varieties is large enough and important
enough to get excited about. With ever more powerful and discriminating
analytical tools and protocols becoming available at a bewildering pace,
we
are fast approaching.....in fact, we have already arrived at.....a point
where arguing about the validity of these distinctions becomes impossibly
complex......and inevitable. If the genome of the greenback cutthroat is
worth saving, well then, why not the genome of the trout (of whatever
species) of a particular watershed which, I can assure you, is different
from that in the next one over? At what point does the difference become
critical? Reductio ad absurdum.......the genetic makeup of each and
every
fish is unique and thus must be conserved. The trouble is that with
today's
technology there is nothing fundamentally absurd about the proposition of
characterising the genome of each individual fish.

That's the eternal prolem with reification.

(snip)

.sigh

Get over yourself. Hard as it must be for everyone to believe, this
really
isn't about you.

Wolfgang

Let me be clear, Wolfman,

Oh, goody......something new!

the .sig is for you sweetums.

I'll go out on a limb here and guess that means something. Am I right?
Come on, tell me I'm right. Please? No? Well, no surprise.

OBROFF: I guess there's a lot of old history in the greenback recovery
program including professors that could not be bothered with it at a
time where it could have made a material difference in the recovery.

Perhaps they had something on their minds other than a notorious and
pestiferous lunatic. On the other hand, maybe they were confident that
someone famous for saving the world singlehandedly time after time would
come through again. How disappointed they must have been, eh?

It's really a fascinating story.

None the less so for being interminable.

That said, at about the same time,
the current wisdom foisted upon flyfisherpeople in general was the
notion that 'hatcheries were bad'.

It occurs to me that you REALLY should visit Earth sometime. You might not
like it.......but I'm sure you'd find it an interesting place.

The flyfishing community in
particular has been ignorant of the critical role they play and even
the role of stocking catchable non-indigenous species that sell
licenses and pay for research.

Judging by the nearly universal appreciation voiced here (as well as in the
fly fishing community as a whole) for the brook trout to be found in such
abundance in so many Western watersheds, I'd say you are perhaps overstating
that ignorance just a wee bit.

The ignorance continues

In certain quarters, yes, unabated, unhampered, uninterrupted, and decidedly
unstoppable.

but issues such
as this and the importance of research on other diseases such as WD
and BKD and advancements in the role of the hatchery far outweigh any
negative affects.

About 27 to 1, would you say? Or would it be more like 59 to 1, or
something in that more or less precise range?

My personal feeling is the anti-hatchery sentiment
grew from magazine publishers and flyfishing equipment manufacturers
and retailers that equated the issues of hatchery steelhead with the
fisheries of Colorado.

Them, sure, but I also detect a distinct aroma of MI5 here.

It is a fact that over 90% of still water in Colorado would be devoid of
fish
completely if it were not for the hatcheries.

Well, actually, no. It wouldn't be a shred over 87.4%. However, your point
is taken......and you'd be a couple of pants sizes narrower either way, so
it's hard to justify quibbling over the difference.

While catch and release contributes to the economy in some cases,

Some, yeah, but only where it's done.

the flagrant anti-conservation attitudes of some, under the
false ruse of ecology, continue.

Even for you, that one is abnormally and hilariously daft.

The 7 castles mud slide and water
release issues from the Pan come immediately to mind.

So do Belgian waffles; the difference being that they are presumably more
germane to whatever nightmarish simulacrum of a point may be ricocheting
repeatedly about the inside your skull with no hope of escape.

If you're concerned about cutthroat trout in Colorado,

Not me. I think they should left left there for as long as they want to
stay.

come on out and bonk a brookie or a rainbow.

What, and put all those hatcheries out of business? Don't you know how
important they are?

These are the real threats.

There have been vague rumors that they are Islamic, Communist, Liberal,
Socialist, Neo-Nazi terrorists floating around for years, but till now I
never had any good reason to give them any credence. To whom shall I make
out my check?

It's all a damned shame, really. If people would only just LISTEN to
you.....why, the very streets of Las Vegas would be awash in greenbacks!
There'd be a greenback cannery in Death Valley!

TBone
A cash flow runs through it

You should talk to Jesus. Maybe he can help you turn that whine into water.

You know, it almost seems a pity that, as always, my point eluded you
entirely. Some day, it might be fun to see you address one of my
arguments......sorta like I did with your pipedream. Ainna?

Wolfgang
who knows there ain't enough greenbacks in the world (and never were and
never will be) to blunt timmie's appetite......or to fund his
hallucinations.

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:23:43 -0000, wrote:

On Sep 5, 9:24 pm, wrote:

And even allowing that the fish with the DNA they wanted to restore were
markedly different from the fish they actually used, thus making a
complete mess of things, how do they know that the DNA from the fish
they used to determine which fish DNA they wanted to preserve was not
simply another of a myriad of different DNA in fish that all looked
alike?

I wonder about this as well. The original paper talks about the
historical range of the greenback, back as far as 150 years. If the
greenback and the Colorado River strain are so alike that today's
fishery biologists cannot visually tell them apart, how do we know
that those identifying the range of the greenback 150 years ago could
tell. They certainly weren't extracting DNA from adipose fin clips!

Hm. Unfortunately the discussion of the historical range is cited
from another article by Young and Harig. I don't think I'm going to
read the whole literature, but it looks like those who have studied
the problem have extrapolated potential historical habitat for
greenback, not actual populations. Fair enough.

Not for me, it isn't. Suppose these goofballs (whichever ones you wish
to consider) managed to take DNA from a substrain "nature" (just to get
all technical-like) was trying its damndest to eliminate, or was a
mutated substrain (good or bad, survival-wise), otherwise screwed the
pooch, DNA-sample-wise? "Greenbacks" are/were green for a reason, and
perhaps ol' momma nature had something in mind that these dip****s went
and messed up...heck, she might have just decided to make all the
streams in Colorado look like mud so them there illegals with buckets
and damned dudes from the pipeline company couldn't see the water...

TC,
R
....what I find amusing in these little passion plays is that it's
generally those who claim to have the most education about nature and
stuff also seem the most surprised by the horns when they keep poking a
bull...

Bill

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:29:39 -0000, wrote:

On Sep 5, 9:24 pm, wrote:

And any ideas who paid for this screw-up?

Well, in perusing some of the articles, I found that the original
Greenback Trout Recovery Program was developed in 1977 by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service,

AHA!! 1977!! Carter was president - it's the Dems' fault!!

the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the U.S.
Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management. Who actually paid for the work over the subsequent 20-30
years? Well, it looks like.... you did!

Um, well...IAC, at least you got my point.

TC,
R

On Sep 6, 7:30 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:29:39 -0000, wrote:
On Sep 5, 9:24 pm, wrote:

And any ideas who paid for this screw-up?

Well, in perusing some of the articles, I found that the original
Greenback Trout Recovery Program was developed in 1977 by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service,

AHA!! 1977!! Carter was president - it's the Dems' fault!!

the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the U.S.
Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management. Who actually paid for the work over the subsequent 20-30
years? Well, it looks like.... you did!

Um, well...IAC, at least you got my point.

You know, for me it was a toss up- fund some grad students to research
cutthroat trout DNA, or send the money directly to the "keep Louie's
car filled with premium" fund. But I suppose there is plenty to go
around.... say, speaking of bulls and horns, I don't suppose you got
any benefit from federal dollars for Katrina relief. You get your
place(s) rebuilt yet?

:-)

Bill (just put it on my tab)

wrote in message
...

...what I find amusing in these little passion plays is that it's
generally those who claim to have the most education about nature and
stuff also seem the most surprised by the horns when they keep poking a
bull...

What I find amusing is your insistence on maintaining the pretense that you
know something about something.

Wolfgang
hey, DNA.....it's just three little letters, right? how complicated can
THAT be?

I think it is a evil plot by the Taliban?
--
Bill Kiene

Kiene's Fly Shop
Sacramento, CA, USA

Web site: www.kiene.com


"Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message
ups.com...
From:

http://www.9news.com/news/local/arti...?storyid=76773

DENVER (AP) - A study led by University of Colorado researchers says
an effort to restore the endangered greenback cutthroat trout has been
using the wrong fish for two decades.

(snip)

.sigh

Halfordian Golfer
Guilt replaced the creel

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 05:38:31 -0700, wrote:

On Sep 6, 7:30 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:29:39 -0000, wrote:
On Sep 5, 9:24 pm, wrote:

And any ideas who paid for this screw-up?

Well, in perusing some of the articles, I found that the original
Greenback Trout Recovery Program was developed in 1977 by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service,

AHA!! 1977!! Carter was president - it's the Dems' fault!!

the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the U.S.
Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management. Who actually paid for the work over the subsequent 20-30
years? Well, it looks like.... you did!

Um, well...IAC, at least you got my point.

You know, for me it was a toss up- fund some grad students to research
cutthroat trout DNA, or send the money directly to the "keep Louie's
car filled with premium" fund. But I suppose there is plenty to go
around.... say, speaking of bulls and horns, I don't suppose you got
any benefit from federal dollars for Katrina relief.

Actually, the many millions/billions of federal dollars wasted on
"Katrina relief" have cost me money and will likely cause long-run
economic damage to the whole area.

You get your place(s) rebuilt yet?

???

TC,
R

On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 07:40:36 -0500, "Wolfgang" ...

....once again proved what a good little trained pup he is...

wrote in message
news
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 07:40:36 -0500, "Wolfgang" ...

...once again proved what a good little trained pup he is...

O, irony, thy name is......dicklet.

Wolfgang
who, checking his calendar, notes that it has been a while since he last
reminded his audience that, yes, it IS as easy as it looks.