![pcray1231](/data/avatars/m/1/1353.jpg?1649698015)
pcray1231
Well-known member
Agree with them as well.
There's no question there's a few streams where it's a net loss to the angler. Mainly these are smaller acidic streams in which brook trout were stocked and are not suitable for rainbows or browns, and do not, and would not, hold a sizable wild trout population.
But while a bit sad for those streams, all in all, it's just not worth the risk. For every one of those streams, there are 20 more with viable wild brook trout populations. Giving up 1 fishery to protect 20 others is an easy call, IMO.
We're giving up on stocking a species we'd like to stock, due to a parasite. A parasite is something nobody asked for and nobody wants. This situation isn't something to rejoice over. My feelings are more a somber acknowledgement that this is a negative situation and the PFBC has little choice but to sacrifice a few for the good of many. It's like throwing a troublesome kid off a team. You don't like that you have to do it, but it's what has to be done.
There's no question there's a few streams where it's a net loss to the angler. Mainly these are smaller acidic streams in which brook trout were stocked and are not suitable for rainbows or browns, and do not, and would not, hold a sizable wild trout population.
But while a bit sad for those streams, all in all, it's just not worth the risk. For every one of those streams, there are 20 more with viable wild brook trout populations. Giving up 1 fishery to protect 20 others is an easy call, IMO.
We're giving up on stocking a species we'd like to stock, due to a parasite. A parasite is something nobody asked for and nobody wants. This situation isn't something to rejoice over. My feelings are more a somber acknowledgement that this is a negative situation and the PFBC has little choice but to sacrifice a few for the good of many. It's like throwing a troublesome kid off a team. You don't like that you have to do it, but it's what has to be done.