Challenge to all Trout Camps

[Stenonema]

I wonder if Whitetails Unlimited would've signed that. Probably not. Those zealots.

Seriously Phil........ You are going back here. Why? You represent the NFC. I am looking for common ground. Do you want me as an enemy? Do you want me to speak to our differences?
It's not like I didn't reach out to you and Bob prior to the petition. I know what you both knew before the petition.

 

[streamerguy]

Right now, I don't believe that Stenonema is implying that native fish conservationists get involved with brown-trout-centric projects and and movements. Was that the case at some point in the past....I don't know, maybe it was. But right now and moving forward I don't think that is his intention.

He's pushing for wild trout management....such as stocking reform, and brook trout would benefit greatly from it.

Which brings me back to my initial scenario of ending stocking on all wild trout streams. By not supporting that motion because brown trout in some stream somewhere will benefit, brook trout will continue to get stocked over if the motion fails. Brook trout lose. The white truck fleet wins.

The PA NFC supports the PFBC making additions to the Natural Reproduction and Class A lists as they come out (as they should). I hope this isn't breaking news to any native fish advocates, but some of those streams on those lists have exclusively brown trout. Should the NFC no longer support the PFBC surveying and adding streams because brown trout are involved??? For the record, I am a member of NFC. By not supporting the PFBC surveying unassessed waters, you are showing less support for brook trout conservation.

Which is the same as not showing support for a blanket action of removing wild trout streams from the stocking list. If wild trout streams get removed from the stocking list, that means native brook trout no longer get stocked over.

Say the PFBC proposed to take 10 streams off of the stocking list. 9 of the streams contain only brook trout, and 1 stream has only brown trout. Would native fish advocates NOT support that because of that single brown trout stream no longer getting stocked which benefits brown trout? Would they rather see those 9 brook trout streams continue to get stocked over if it meant that 1 brown trout stream didn't benefit? That would be a big blow to brook trout conservation.

Again.... doesn't mean we need to ignore differences. Each "camp" can still do things separately and work towards achieving their own goals, but it doesn't hurt to get together on ONE simple objective (again....not necessarily as organizations, but as us individuals). Strength in numbers. The PFBC obviously isn't doing squat for brook-trout centric conservation despite how many studies they are presented with, and wild trout management as a whole has been a struggle. For all we know nothing may come of it and the hatchery trout fans may come out on top. But we can try...

 

[silverfox]

At extreme risk, lol. I'll try to spell out my own viewpoint.

I am for wild trout. Browns, brookies, rainbows. And on 95% of projects they aren't going to conflict. Now for the nuance. Yes, of those, brookies should recieve preference where it is feasible.

Feasible..... While I recognize that, for instance, the LJR, once held brookies, and who knows, one may turn up now and then even today. Browns have displaced them. They are the more aggressive, more dominant species in that particular environment. They won. I believe that any effort to eradicate the browns from the LJR is doomed to fail. You are going to ruin an absolutely fantastic wild trout resource, attempt to establish brookies, maybe even have a modicum of success in getting a few to grow. But while you do this it's gonna suck as a fishery, turn a whole lotta people against you for ruining their favorite river, and make you and your cause public enemy #1. And the moment you look away, browns are going to take it back over anyway. I am perfectly happy with saying the LJR, with wild browns in it, is a valuable resource I want to protect.

And substitute the LJR with, frankly, MOST wild brown streams in this fair state. In no way would I advocate any sort of mass statewide policy of taking out browns in efforts to restore brookies. Not because I don't see brookies as more important, I do. But I value the browns too, I don't think it'll work, and all you'll do is screw up an already good fishery failing to make a better one. It's like having a wonderful wife, and throwing her away to try for someone a little better, even though you know you won't succeed and you'll end up with nobody!

But take out the policy/fisherman in me and I do see brook trout as the conservation priority. We need to pay extra attention to protecting those headwater streams where brookies still thrive. That will have benefits downstream too. I agree that the PFBC should have some brook trout specific policies, if for no other reason than public awareness and education. In another thread I said 1. stop stocking over brookies and 2. make brookies C&R statewide. I would absolutely support that. It says nothing about removing browns, or don't pay attention to browns, or anything of the sort. And yes, in an ideal scenario, if it were feasible to replace a mixed population with brookies only, I think it should be done. Even if as an experiment. Upper Kettle was mentioned. I'm not talking about ending the stocking throughout the entire length of Kettle. I'm saying it has a barrier, Ole Bull. A fence on the fish ladder will do nicely. Above that barrier there are browns, and brookies, already battling it out. And plenty of interconnected tribs with brookies. That's an ideal place to run such a thing, to try to tip the scales in favor of the brookies. Shock out the browns, encourage their harvest, make brookies C&R. Advertise the crap out of it, show the public you are serious about protecting brook trout above all other. Restore this particular system for brookies, because it actually stands a chance of success.

But yes, I still believe our brown trout water is valuable and worthy of conservation efforts as well, and if anyone has a project to restore, enhance, or protect a wild brown trout stream, sign me up, I'm your ally. Nativists, I'm your ally too on most projects, I want to see brook trout succeed as well.

Right. We're essentially on the same page. Nobody is advocating for these doomsday scenarios for brown trout like eradicating brown trout from the Letort, LJR, Penns, etc. etc. etc. I hate when people bring things like that up because it somewhat implies that's what people want. It's not.

At the risk of sounding like an aspirational biologist (I'm a social and behavioral scientist as it relates to policy and the environment), the reason I rely on all of the other documents that outline priorities, threats, goals, and approaches are because the people who made those lists and documents are experts. They're not my ideas, plans, goals, or approaches.

The CBP (of which PA is a signatory) has a stated goal of increasing allopatric brook trout populations by 14,600 sq. km. at a rate of 137 sq. km. per year. Brook trout are listed as the only salmonid species in Pennsylvania in need of greatest conservation need in the state wildlife action plan. TU has developed a roadmap for brook trout conservation with prescriptive treatment to remove nonnative trout in high priority watersheds.

Again, these aren't my ideas. I'm simply stating support for those ideas. So this "camp's" "stance" isn't driven by concepts or ideas developed in a vacuum by some nonprofit org. They're established by state and federal agencies and NGOs made up of biologists, natural resources managers, ecologists, environmental scientists, and in general folks far smarter than me.

So the personal attacks on individuals who support these initiatives is pretty offensive. I'm not aiming that comment at you pcray. At the end of the day, all we're doing is voicing our support for scientifically sound approaches to management that are already done in neighboring states, and we get called names and constantly drug through the mud for it.

 

[silverfox]

Right now, I don't believe that Stenonema is implying that native fish conservationists get involved with brown-trout-centric projects and and movements. Was that the case at some point in the past....I don't know, maybe it was. But right now and moving forward I don't think that is his intention.

He's pushing for wild trout management....such as stocking reform, and brook trout would benefit greatly from it.

Which brings me back to my initial scenario of ending stocking on all wild trout streams. By not supporting that motion because brown trout in some stream somewhere will benefit, brook trout will continue to get stocked over if the motion fails. Brook trout lose. The white truck fleet wins.

The PA NFC supports the PFBC making additions to the Natural Reproduction and Class A lists as they come out (as they should). I hope this isn't breaking news to any native fish advocates, but some of those streams on those lists have exclusively brown trout. Should the NFC no longer support the PFBC surveying and adding streams because brown trout are involved??? For the record, I am a member of NFC. By not supporting the PFBC surveying unassessed waters, you are showing less support for brook trout conservation.

Which is the same as not showing support for a blanket action of removing wild trout streams from the stocking list. If wild trout streams get removed from the stocking list, that means native brook trout no longer get stocked over.

Say the PFBC proposed to take 10 streams off of the stocking list. 9 of the streams contain only brook trout, and 1 stream has only brown trout. Would native fish advocates NOT support that because of that single brown trout stream no longer getting stocked which benefits brown trout? Would they rather see those 9 brook trout streams continue to get stocked over if it meant that 1 brown trout stream didn't benefit? That would be a big blow to brook trout conservation.

Again.... doesn't mean we need to ignore differences. Each "camp" can still do things separately and work towards achieving their own goals, but it doesn't hurt to get together on ONE simple objective (again....not necessarily as organizations, but as us individuals). Strength in numbers. The PFBC obviously isn't doing squat for brook-trout centric conservation despite how many studies they are presented with, and wild trout management as a whole has been a struggle. For all we know nothing may come of it and the hatchery trout fans may come out on top. But we can try...

With all due respect, nobody is suggesting that we don't advocate for stocking reforms because brown trout benefit in some areas. In fact, we supported the Freeman Run change and as you pointed out, we routinely promote and support the addition of Class A and Wild Trout streams to the list. Many of those streams are brown trout streams.

Nobody from NFC is suggesting we don't support the addition of class a and wild trout stream sections. Similarly, nobody from NFC is saying we shouldn't advocate for the cessation of stocking over wild trout as a blanket statement. Please don't muddy the water here by presuming to know how NFC would respond to hypothetical scenarios.

 

[silverfox]

Seriously Phil........ You are going back here. Why? You represent the NFC. I am looking for common ground. Do you want me as an enemy? Do you want me to speak to our differences?
It's not like I didn't reach out to you and Bob prior to the petition. I know what you both knew before the petition.

I didn't "go back here."

So what is the plan? I think we've established the common issues. What's the next step? What are you proposing?

 

[streamerguy]

With all due respect, nobody is suggesting that we don't advocate for stocking reforms because brown trout benefit in some areas. In fact, we supported the Freeman Run change and as you pointed out, we routinely promote and support the addition of Class A and Wild Trout streams to the list. Many of those streams are brown trout streams.

Nobody from NFC is suggesting we don't support the addition of class a and wild trout stream sections. Similarly, nobody from NFC is saying we shouldn't advocate for the cessation of stocking over wild trout as a blanket statement. Please don't muddy the water here by presuming to know how NFC would respond to hypothetical scenarios.

Understood. And, that demonstrates that there IS indeed common ground that everybody can work together on. My intention is not to muddy the water, but rather point out that even though some folks may disagree on some (or many) things, it is possible that everyone can work together on at least something.

 

[silverfox]

Understood. And, that demonstrates that there IS indeed common ground that everybody can work together on. My intention is not to muddy the water, but rather point out that even though some folks may disagree on some (or many) things, it is possible that everyone can work together on at least something.

Absolutely. My point is that nobody is saying we can't work together or that we won't support some common goal(s). We have a track record of working with others on common issues.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Yea native fish conservationists realize that once something has gotten to the social popularity of the LJR or spring creek ect that its not worth putting effort into trying to remove invasive species there. There are plenty of opportunities in the kettle, pine, sinnemahoning, west branch of Susquehanna tribs, loyalsock, and huntington creek/rickets glen tribs.

Right now we have zero and none of those are unique invadive brown trout fisheries. Id take one just even one watershed to manage for native brook trout to start

 

[silverfox]

Yea native fish conservationists realize that once something has gotten to the social popularity of the LJR or spring creek ect that its not worth putting effort into trying to remove invasive species there. There are plenty of opportunities in the kettle, pine, sinnemahoning, west branch of Susquehanna tribs, loyalsock, and huntington creek/rickets glen tribs.

Right now we have zero and none of those are unique invadive brown trout fisheries. Id take one just even one watershed to manage for native brook trout to start

On that note, it's worth pointing out that the LJRA did, in fact, remove brown trout from tributaries to the LJR above impoundments. In fact, there was another round proposed prior to COVID. I'll be honest, I lost track of whether it happened or not. It's also important to note that PFBC was involved in those relocation efforts by supplying manpower and equipment to facilitate the relocation efforts. I can't imagine anyone would have a problem with that approach.

The reservoirs serve as barriers to separate the species. It's worth noting, however, that in those cases, someone physically transported the fish above the impoundments, or they wouldn't be there. There's probably a high likelihood that it continues to happen unless someone initiates a public education campaign to dissuade people from conducting bucket biology in the future.

 

[streamerguy]

So what is the plan? I think we've established the common issues. What's the next step? What are you proposing?

^ this right here.

 

[pcray1231]

With all due respect, nobody is suggesting that we don't advocate for stocking reforms because brown trout benefit in some areas. In fact, we supported the Freeman Run change and as you pointed out, we routinely promote and support the addition of Class A and Wild Trout streams to the list. Many of those streams are brown trout streams.

Nobody from NFC is suggesting we don't support the addition of class a and wild trout stream sections. Similarly, nobody from NFC is saying we shouldn't advocate for the cessation of stocking over wild trout as a blanket statement. Please don't muddy the water here by presuming to know how NFC would respond to hypothetical scenarios.

I know that. And I am your ally.

But you have to recognize that harping on and on about brook trout, and how browns are the biggest threat, is alienating allies. You aren't wrong. It's just not a good tactic to achieve success in the real world. Fishermen are your army.

I openly state that there should be a hierarchy. Native brookies over browns. Wild browns over stocked anything. And yes, stocked fisheries over no fishery at all. That priority structure should be crystal clear from the PFBC. Their ads, the space they devote on their website or in the booklet, everything should reflect this.

But I'll also fully state that all of them are valuable. Even stocked fisheries are valuable. Conservation effort and resources should go to all trout fisheries, brook, brown, rainbow, or stocked. And attempts to make a stream go up a rung on the priority ladder should only be done where it is feasible with a good chance of success.

Aside from the priority messaging, the actual policy from the PFBC isn't all that terrible. Don't stock class A's, etc. But they occasionally violate their own policy, which again, sends the wrong message as to what the priority is, and harms very valuable streams in the process. And the bar for class A is just too high. Nobody is saying an entire stream shouldn't be stocked because one fish reproduced 10 years ago and it could happen again someday. But, class B's and C's are quite often quality fisheries that should be recognized as such and shouldn't get stocked. There's something wrong with the kg/hectare approach. Especially on small streams, if there's a fish everywhere there should be a fish, it's worthy of being a wild trout stream. The difference between class A and class B is often the good lies being 10 feet apart or 20, but people aren't fishing in between anyway.

 

[Swattie87]

At the very least, it’s nice to see that our passion for wild native and/or wild Trout doesn’t sleep. 🥱

Here’s what frustrates me about this. (Beside it taking over nearly every thread at the moment.) You guys all realize that you share the same perspective for about 95% of this topic, yet as opposed to combining forces around that to support a united cause, you instead repeatedly focus on the 5% that differs. I think, that was the OP’s original point, but I honestly have no clue any more.

It’s not like these threads are even fun any more from a popcorn perspective.

 

[hooker-of-men]

At extreme risk, lol. I'll try to spell out my own viewpoint.

I am for wild trout. Browns, brookies, rainbows. And on 95% of projects they aren't going to conflict. Now for the nuance. Yes, of those, brookies should recieve preference where it is feasible.

Feasible..... While I recognize that, for instance, the LJR, once held brookies, and who knows, one may turn up now and then even today. Browns have displaced them. They are the more aggressive, more dominant species in that particular environment. They won. I believe that any effort to eradicate the browns from the LJR is doomed to fail. You are going to ruin an absolutely fantastic wild trout resource, attempt to establish brookies, maybe even have a modicum of success in getting a few to grow. But while you do this it's gonna suck as a fishery, turn a whole lotta people against you for ruining their favorite river, and make you and your cause public enemy #1. And the moment you look away, browns are going to take it back over anyway. I am perfectly happy with saying the LJR, with wild browns in it, is a valuable resource I want to protect.

And substitute the LJR with, frankly, MOST wild brown streams in this fair state. In no way would I advocate any sort of mass statewide policy of taking out browns in efforts to restore brookies. Not because I don't see brookies as more important, I do. But I value the browns too, I don't think it'll work, and all you'll do is screw up an already good fishery failing to make a better one. It's like having a wonderful wife, and throwing her away to try for someone a little better, even though you know you won't succeed and you'll end up with nobody!

But take out the policy/fisherman in me and I do see brook trout as the conservation priority. We need to pay extra attention to protecting those headwater streams where brookies still thrive. That will have benefits downstream too. I agree that the PFBC should have some brook trout specific policies, if for no other reason than public awareness and education. In another thread I said 1. stop stocking over brookies and 2. make brookies C&R statewide. I would absolutely support that. It says nothing about removing browns, or don't pay attention to browns, or anything of the sort. And yes, in an ideal scenario, if it were feasible to replace a mixed population with brookies only, I think it should be done. Even if as an experiment. Upper Kettle was mentioned. I'm not talking about ending the stocking throughout the entire length of Kettle. I'm saying it has a barrier, Ole Bull. A fence on the fish ladder will do nicely. Above that barrier there are browns, and brookies, already battling it out. And plenty of interconnected tribs with brookies. That's an ideal place to run such a thing, to try to tip the scales in favor of the brookies. Shock out the browns, encourage their harvest, make brookies C&R. Advertise the crap out of it, show the public you are serious about protecting brook trout above all other. Restore this particular system for brookies, because it actually stands a chance of success.

But yes, I still believe our brown trout water is valuable and worthy of conservation efforts as well, and if anyone has a project to restore, enhance, or protect a wild brown trout stream, sign me up, I'm your ally. Nativists, I'm your ally too on most projects, I want to see brook trout succeed as well. And hell, I see value in stocked fisheries too. As much as I would LOVE to see lower Pine Creek, or Oil, or name any large warm waterway, restored to cold water. As much as the focus and goal should be on wild trout. Right now those are are not wild trout streams. They are still valuable. They SHOULD be stocked and provide a valuable resource. And project work/conservation efforts on those is fine as well. Did you see what improvements on Babb Creek did for Pine? OMG, yes, lets do more of that. Yeah, it enhanced a stocked fishery. It made things better. And maybe enough efforts like that Pine will turn more wild, that'd be great, but lets not diminish the gain that was already made on the stocked fishery.

You can't just separate conservation from fishing like that. Fishermen are your conservationists. Stocked fisheries, wild brown fisheries. Those are the gateways. They create conservationists. As a kid I yanked stocked fish out of the local stocked streams. Started searching out a better experience, went for float stocked type waters instead of bathtubs. Moved onto Spring and Penns and the like and was like, wow. Fished brookie streams and loved it. Got involved in all of the above. And now I have kids. And I take them to the smaller local stocked streams, where I started, because a 4 foot tall 7 year old isn't going to walk 3 miles into a stream, or handle wading the Lehigh or Penns Creek, or have the attention span to wait for the evening hatch. You gotta start somewhere. I have even taken him to pay ponds, because it's fun and gets him into it, but you know when he catches a 7 inch native, I go nuts and explain to him how this is a better trophy than that 20 inch bow he caught in that fee pond. You can educate. Our policies should focus on educating more than they do. You can tell the public, our policies show a clear preference for native brook trout over wild browns, wild browns over stocked anything, and where none of the above is currently feasible, we still value having a stocked fishery over no fishery at all. That's our priority hierarchy and what will lead our policy. Each stream is different. And the way we manage is we look at every stream, we take that priority hierarchy, and determine what the highest form that stream is currently capable of, and we shoot for that. That's what I'm for.

Excellent. Glad I didn't have to type it out...

 

[silverfox]

I know that. And I am your ally.

But you have to recognize that harping on and on about brook trout, and how browns are the biggest threat, is alienating allies. You aren't wrong. It's just not a good tactic to achieve success in the real world. Fishermen are your army.

I openly state that there should be a hierarchy. Native brookies over browns. Wild browns over stocked anything. And yes, stocked fisheries over no fishery at all. That priority structure should be crystal clear from the PFBC. Their ads, the space they devote on their website or in the booklet, everything should reflect this.

But I'll also fully state that all of them are valuable. Even stocked fisheries are valuable. Conservation effort and resources should go to all trout fisheries, brook, brown, rainbow, or stocked. And attempts to make a stream go up a rung on the priority ladder should only be done where it is feasible with a good chance of success.

Aside from the priority messaging, the actual policy from the PFBC isn't all that terrible. Don't stock class A's, etc. But they occasionally violate their own policy, which again, sends the wrong message as to what the priority is, and harms very valuable streams in the process. And the bar for class A is just too high. Nobody is saying an entire stream shouldn't be stocked because one fish reproduced 10 years ago and it could happen again someday. But, class B's and C's are quite often quality fisheries that should be recognized as such and shouldn't get stocked. There's something wrong with the kg/hectare approach. Especially on small streams, if there's a fish everywhere there should be a fish, it's worthy of being a wild trout stream. The difference between class A and class B is often the good lies being 10 feet apart or 20, but people aren't fishing in between anyway.

As I've said before, I personally focus on the biotic issue because nobody else is. In my opinion, that's one of the reasons things have gotten as bad as they have. There's a serious problem here that nobody wants to talk about because it's uncomfortable. I don't think ignoring it more is helpful. Aside from biotic issues, we're left with environmental issues. That's something that already has an enormous following and is being addressed wholesale across the board.

So focusing on commonality is great, except that it does nothing to address the 800lb gorilla in the room. The number 3 threat to brook trout in Pennsylvania doesn't go away simply because people stop talking about it.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I know that. And I am your ally.

But you have to recognize that harping on and on about brook trout, and how browns are the biggest threat, is alienating allies. You aren't wrong. It's just not a good tactic to achieve success in the real world. Fishermen are your army.

I openly state that there should be a hierarchy. Native brookies over browns. Wild browns over stocked anything. And yes, stocked fisheries over no fishery at all. That priority structure should be crystal clear from the PFBC. Their ads, the space they devote on their website or in the booklet, everything should reflect this.

But I'll also fully state that all of them are valuable. Even stocked fisheries are valuable. Conservation effort and resources should go to all trout fisheries, brook, brown, rainbow, or stocked. And attempts to make a stream go up a rung on the priority ladder should only be done where it is feasible with a good chance of success.

Aside from the priority messaging, the actual policy from the PFBC isn't all that terrible. Don't stock class A's, etc. But they occasionally violate their own policy, which again, sends the wrong message as to what the priority is, and harms very valuable streams in the process. And the bar for class A is just too high. Nobody is saying an entire stream shouldn't be stocked because one fish reproduced 10 years ago and it could happen again someday. But, class B's and C's are quite often quality fisheries that should be recognized as such and shouldn't get stocked. There's something wrong with the kg/hectare approach. Especially on small streams, if there's a fish everywhere there should be a fish, it's worthy of being a wild trout stream. The difference between class A and class B is often the good lies being 10 feet apart or 20, but people aren't fishing in between anyway.

I have always said wild invasive trout have a value I have just separated social and conservation values. Since there is no such thing as conserving of in invasive species because its a net loss to biodiversity and the ecosystem, I just call it “promoting a fishery” but its clear these fisheries have a social value to Pennsylvanians and NFC recognizes that and has not put forth one initiative that goes after these large trophy wild invasive brown trout waters. What we post is more educational content in hopes people won’t stand in the way when the state is ready to do something for native brook trout where it is socially and ecologically possible.

People know I am a very avid(well maybe enthusiastic is a better word) night fisherman for brown trout. Thats what I have near me and I am utilizing it. When I post the EBTJV Pennsylvania threat/disturbance rankings for brook trout that have brown trout ranked third I am trying to educate people from a Conservation standpoint and not devalue their fly fishing/sporting achievements or passion for catching brown trout.

Its like we know that high blood pressure and diabetes are the top two causes of chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis in Americans but I don’t run into pizza hut and slap a slice of pepperoni out of someones hand. But that same time the public should have the education/awareness to make healthy choices where they can do so.

 

[silverfox]

At the very least, it’s nice to see that our passion for wild native and/or wild Trout doesn’t sleep. 🥱

Here’s what frustrates me about this. (Beside it taking over nearly every thread at the moment.) You guys all realize that you share the same perspective for about 95% of this topic, yet as opposed to combining forces around that to support a united cause, you instead repeatedly focus on the 5% that differs. I think, that was the OP’s original point, but I honestly have no clue any more.

It’s not like these threads are even fun any more from a popcorn perspective.

Again. Because nobody seems to want to address the 5% difference that represents a significant problem.

Also, nobody is refusing to join forces on common goals. Focusing on an issue that is too taboo for most people to talk about isn't refusing to work on everything else.

 

[hooker-of-men]

Why do you think your positions are not represented accurately to your mind here? Is everyone out to get you? Or are we too stupid to understand your deluge of posts, replies to your self, and links to random academic studies?

Or is it that your actions and the presentation of your ideas are far more belligerent and disagreeable than your ideas?

I don't want this to be ad hominem, but I don't see anyone filling every single thread with multiple posts that say "restoring the native brook trout range is a naïve fantasy." On the other hand, we are most certainly bludgeoned with the brook trout perspective in many, many discussions.

 

[Swattie87]

Again. Because nobody seems to want to address the 5% difference that represents a significant problem.

Also, nobody is refusing to join forces on common goals. Focusing on an issue that is too taboo for most people to talk about isn't refusing to work on everything else.

Respectfully, and from a relatively neutral perspective in observing these threads (I too agree with the 95% of common ground), while focusing on the 5% difference you guys are missing the forest for the trees.

You think the master baiter camp that wants truckloads of Stockies dumped into the most easily accessed pools of the wild Trout stream running by their camp or club fight amongst themselves like this? They don’t. Heck, I’m a member of a fishing/hunting camp where the majority thinks like this. They don’t care what species gets stocked, they don’t care about the impact to wild Trout. They only care about getting fish dumped in a couple days before the opener, so they can go up to camp, get away from their wives for a few days, walk to the hole behind camp on opening day, spend 90 minutes yanking fish out until they get bored, or cold, or both, and are back in the cabin by 10:00 playing cards, eating deer bologna, and drinking beer. They don’t fish again (for Trout) until 365 days later. This situation mirrors itself at thousands of camps/clubs across the state.

They keep it quite simple, and united with the neighboring camps…”Stop stocking, and we all post.” Period. And this is the camp that is presently beating us in terms of getting their voice heard. My humble suggestion is that this is the bigger opponent than the 5% difference you guys have spent months on here arguing over. Maybe you guys are all over on paspincasters.com, or whatever, giving them hell. I dunno.

 

[silverfox]

Why do you think your positions are not represented accurately to your mind here? Is everyone out to get you? Or are we too stupid to understand your deluge of posts, replies to your self, and links to random academic studies?

Or is it that your actions and the presentation of your ideas are far more belligerent and disagreeable than your ideas?

I don't want this to be ad hominem, but I don't see anyone filling every single thread with multiple posts that say "restoring the native brook trout range is a naïve fantasy." On the other hand, we are most certainly bludgeoned with the brook trout perspective in many, many discussions.

That's the equivalent of saying, "why do you hate puppies?"

"every single thread?" Come on now. It's difficult being in the minority "camp." I'm sure that results in frustration for passionate people who want to speak their mind, and results in conversations taking that turn pretty frequently. This is a discussion forum, and these conversations tend to be pretty lively and usually have a lot of posts.

In this particular case, it's hard to read people inaccurately speaking for you and to not defend yourself.

 

[hooker-of-men]

That's the equivalent of saying, "why do you hate puppies?"

"every single thread?" Come on now. It's difficult being in the minority "camp." I'm sure that results in frustration for passionate people who want to speak their mind, and results in conversations taking that turn pretty frequently. This is a discussion forum, and these conversations tend to be pretty lively and usually have a lot of posts.

In this particular case, it's hard to read people inaccurately speaking for you and to not defend yourself.

Have it your way, friend.