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

Conan The Librarian wrote in news:ecmuij$das6$1
@news.swt.edu:

So are you in favor of Tim's last suggestion that they stock fish
capable of reproducing?



Just read the post that generated Tim's response. I guess you could say
that at some level, I feel that the bucket biology has already taken place,
and that if the state decides that they want to dump in fertile rainbow
trout and see what happens, it wouldn't be all that huge of a tragedy. The
"wild" trout that result within a few seasons would be every bit as
"native" as the brown trout in there right now. It's somewhat disingenuous
to make believe that the Battenkill fishery is pure in any sense of the
word.

Now, if the state decided that it wanted to put resources into restoring
the brook trout population, that would be a different story.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote in news:ecmuij$das6$1
@news.swt.edu:

So are you in favor of Tim's last suggestion that they stock fish
capable of reproducing?

Just read the post that generated Tim's response. I guess you could say
that at some level, I feel that the bucket biology has already taken place,
and that if the state decides that they want to dump in fertile rainbow
trout and see what happens, it wouldn't be all that huge of a tragedy. The
"wild" trout that result within a few seasons would be every bit as
"native" as the brown trout in there right now. It's somewhat disingenuous
to make believe that the Battenkill fishery is pure in any sense of the
word.

I'm not saying it's pure, but it doesn't make sense to me to say,
"Well, we made a mistake stocking those browns, so let's add another
non-native species to compound the situation while we're at it."


Chuck Vance

Conan The Librarian wrote in
:

Scott Seidman wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote in news:ecmuij$das6$1
@news.swt.edu:

So are you in favor of Tim's last suggestion that they stock fish
capable of reproducing?

Just read the post that generated Tim's response. I guess you could
say that at some level, I feel that the bucket biology has already
taken place, and that if the state decides that they want to dump in
fertile rainbow trout and see what happens, it wouldn't be all that
huge of a tragedy. The "wild" trout that result within a few seasons
would be every bit as "native" as the brown trout in there right now.
It's somewhat disingenuous to make believe that the Battenkill
fishery is pure in any sense of the word.

I'm not saying it's pure, but it doesn't make sense to me to say,
"Well, we made a mistake stocking those browns, so let's add another
non-native species to compound the situation while we're at it."


Chuck Vance


OK, I can see that as a legitimate argument. Learning from history,
stocking practices should be sensitive to the introduction of new non-
natives, and not take a step in the wrong direction.
--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Conan The Librarian wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:


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.

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.

So are you in favor of Tim's last suggestion that they stock fish
capable of reproducing?

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.

Your approach makes sense. My main beef with Tim was his suggestion
that this program would bring increased fishing pressure but that
somehow increased fishing pressure would be a good thing for the native
fish.


Chuck Vance

Chuck,

My feeling that there is a sincerity for the conservation of the place
goes out the window when I read all of the ads promoting flyfishing in
this section of the river. The personal-pimpin' ads in the back of this
issue of FlyFisherman magazine, to wit.

This is not about protecting anything but revenue.

I continue to hear traditional subsistence anglers be denegrated and
mocked by this group and by TU.

TBone
A cash flow runs through it.

Conan The Librarian wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote in news:ecmuij$das6$1
@news.swt.edu:

So are you in favor of Tim's last suggestion that they stock fish
capable of reproducing?

Just read the post that generated Tim's response. I guess you could say
that at some level, I feel that the bucket biology has already taken place,
and that if the state decides that they want to dump in fertile rainbow
trout and see what happens, it wouldn't be all that huge of a tragedy. The
"wild" trout that result within a few seasons would be every bit as
"native" as the brown trout in there right now. It's somewhat disingenuous
to make believe that the Battenkill fishery is pure in any sense of the
word.

I'm not saying it's pure, but it doesn't make sense to me to say,
"Well, we made a mistake stocking those browns, so let's add another
non-native species to compound the situation while we're at it."


Chuck Vance

So Chuck - which introduced species would have more affect on a wild
brook trout population - browns or rainbows?

Your pal,

TBone

wrote:
snip
I continue to hear traditional subsistence anglers be denegrated and
mocked by this group and by TU.

What is a "traditional subsistence angler" ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

wrote:

snip I continue to hear traditional subsistence anglers be
denegrated and
mocked by this group and by TU.


What is a "traditional subsistence angler" ?

A high explosives expert?


Chuck Vance (an explosive charge runs through it)

wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

I'm not saying it's pure, but it doesn't make sense to me to say,
"Well, we made a mistake stocking those browns, so let's add another
non-native species to compound the situation while we're at it."

So Chuck - which introduced species would have more affect on a wild
brook trout population - browns or rainbows?

So Tim - which is better for the true native fish, having one
non-native population introduced or having two introduced?


Chuck Vance

Conan The Librarian wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
snip I continue to hear traditional subsistence anglers be
denegrated and
mocked by this group and by TU.

What is a "traditional subsistence angler" ?

A high explosives expert?

One definition of traditional subsistence angling is
Native American spearing and netting. However, I don't
think that's what Tim is talking about.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
t...
wrote:
snip I continue to hear traditional subsistence anglers be denegrated
and
mocked by this group and by TU.

What is a "traditional subsistence angler" ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

Somebody who needs the State to stock triploid rainbows, of course.