Absolutely spot on. Genetic purity is a dangerous road to go down. I'm not a fan of "strain" talk or subspecies or "heritage" populations. Suggesting that some isolated population has more value than the rest of the population means you've written off a significant portion of the species.
Genetic purity would be looming for a “heritage strain” instead or saying lets maintain the diversity of genes we already have on the landscape and maximize gene flow after selection events.
You know there's a block feature on the forum right? You don't have to submit yourself to all that nonsensical science stuff if you don't want to.
You are speaking for me.
am I wrong?
If someone won’t change how they feel despite an accurate understanding of the facts I have no issue with that and thats totally fair. I post the research more explain what I am advocating for when I talk to those decision makers but also in hopes that people not at all familiar with it will get a general awareness of what is going on.
From a guy that doesn't really care too much about the brookie stuff, I'm all for the above post. Get it done. Remove invasive species and see how it goes. These are watersheds that I probably won't fish so I'm not overly concerned. I hope it does work and I am being 100% honest. Once people see the results, it should be better for all wild trout populations in the state. If you need me to lobby legislators on your organizations behalf, nope. You need to convince them, not me.
Yep. Exactly. It shows that while an action may not be 100% "in line" with some brookie fans' goals/beliefs/motives (due to that action benefitting brown trout in some way shape or form, somewhere), it STILL would be an absolutely MASSIVE win for the "brookie camp," as it would also be for the "wild trout camp." The biggest win that either camp can ever dream of, that's actually controllable by humans. Can you say common ground? Doesn't mean differences can't still be acknowledged and addressed. That's all still important to discuss (introduced species and all that jazz). But it does mean there is SOMETHING that each group of folks can both work towards.
That's just the thing though.....they aren't suggesting such changes. At least that the public is seeing and able to comment on, and have the commissioners vote on.
Thats fair, and even though it seems fruitless we never stop talking to them. Its just that the conversations will be much more meaningful when the general public is engaging them as well which is the goal in the near future. Anglers interested in getting it done faster help too despite not being who I refer to as the general public(more non angler or infrequently angler). So while I respect those that don’t have an interest completely, anyone who dose can write their representatives, the fish and game committees(house and senate), write tim schaeffer a letter, and teach one additional person about the issue who has nothing to do with it.
I have wondered myself if the staff may feel as we do on stocking reform but has a professional defeatism or fear of reprisal take. Hold after what happened to John Arway over stocking? Do they fear they will be passed up for a better job if they keep raising the issue? These are the questions i often ask my self.
I often wonder the same. It's either that, or they just really don't care. Or care enough to actively push for it.
Yes you are wrong.
Ok. So stocking is off the table. Then let's get the environment cleaned up! That's right in my wheelhouse. AMD is a good place to start. Ag practices are technically more significant, but that's a bigger ball of wax. Still a lot of direct polluters out there. This is a fun site: https://echo.epa.gov/
Something to consider. Did you hear about the 80k gal. spill on the upper Grayling Creek last summer. I don't think anyone heard about it because no-one fishes it anymore. Grayling creek is a failed reintroduction attempt. I was there and saw it myself. If people are fishing a stream without species bias they can still value the resource. If no-one is fishing it what happens when a tractor trailer rolls over spilling fuel into it.. No one cares enough to talk about it. A zealot is an uncompromising fanatic. That isn't an insult. The Native Fish stance is entirely uncompromising and you fanatically spread the science gospel justifying it. It's okay wear it.List of Zealots advocating for native brook trout and against invasive trout including doing removals, recommending removals, or stocking reform.
EBTJV
easternbrooktrout.org
Home page
www.iucn.org
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
United States federal agency that manages national wildlife refuges, protects endangered species, manages migratory birds, restores nationally significant fisheries, and enforces federal wildlife laws.www.fws.gov
NPS.gov Homepage (U.S. National Park Service)
The National Park Service cares for special places saved by the American people so that all may experience our heritage.www.nps.gov
Native Fish Coalition
List of Non Zealots
People who‘s fishing biasis cloud their conservation (Mcsneek)
The irony is no one is advocating removing any wild invasive brown trout from the places people actually love to fish in most cases unless you can’t het enough 3” brown trout
No no no.... In the context of the comment you were responding to. He was right about the OP.... I am totally focused on getting stocking stopped over wild trout. In that context you are right... I'm sorry.. My Bad... continue...
That's entirely untrue.
