hemlock
Active member
While they are still chewing up native fish species and displacing them, I'll consider them invasive. My opinion of course.
Interesting Brook Trout Info from a Scientist
- Thread starter caddisflyer
- Start date
Nymph-wristed
Well-known member
I am not asking this to stir the pot.
Are there examples of successful eradication of an established invasive species in the US? Once they are here, it seems like game over.
Are there examples of successful eradication of an established invasive species in the US? Once they are here, it seems like game over.
redietz
Well-known member
So are honey bees. We don't want to be without either.
hemlock
Active member
So we are comparing a pollinator with a fish? Or are brown trout pollinators to?
I won't argue about it because I believe most people know the truth. Brown trout are not good for brook trout. I would have to imagine that most here have fished a stream that is primarily brown trout and if there weren't brown trout there, there would be brook trout present.
I think these conversations would be a lot easier if people were just truthful about how they feel on the subject. If someone likes brown trout more than brook trout or simply doesn't give a damn about brook trout, just say that. No more trying to say brown trout aren't invasive, that brook trout and brown trout coexist, that brook trout are doomed by mass deforestation that happened 100 years ago, etc.
Not directing that last bit directly at you, more just yelling it into the void.
What do you think would be the public’s reaction to the state raising and releasing bees? Not just regular old honey bees, but a genetically inferior bee that came with a whole host of disease.
There’s a big difference between a species that’s introduced and finds its place in ecosystem after some time and actively adding more of a non native species on top of our native fish.
hemlock
Active member
On a non-brown trout related note, how the hell are these allowed to be stocked:
That was caught in a wild brook trout stream. Something, something, genetic introgression...
I do see people on facebook say they are beautiful tho!!
That was caught in a wild brook trout stream. Something, something, genetic introgression...
I do see people on facebook say they are beautiful tho!!
redietz
Well-known member
I'm not in favor of stocking any species over wild fish. And as the original video said, stocking brook trout is a bigger threat to wild brook trout than stocking browns. Brown trout are way down the list of problems wild brook trout face.
hemlock
Active member
dudemanspecial
Well-known member
I don't know of one person on this forum that advocates for stocking over wild fish, yet we always get a few people come on here and argure as if the entire population of the forum are dumping buckets of rainbows in class A brookie streams every week. It's weird.
Not true. Brown trout are one of the biggest problems wild brook trout face.
Fact 1. Brown trout are an invasive species that have displaced brook trout to a great extent in many stream miles, greatly reducing brook trout populations.
Fact 2. Doing something about that would be very difficult. Brown trout are very widely distributed now and have been for at least a century. There is no piscicide that is specific to brown trout.
Fact 2 does not negate Fact 1. Both are true.
redietz
Well-known member
That's your opinion. It isn't the opinion of the scientist in the video.
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
No it wasn't but it's the vast majority opinion of scientists in the field of fisheries.
I found this guys opinion pretty laughable when compared to and standing against the mountain of scientific studies to the contrary.
Last edited:
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
I think you are correct too. It's why I think it's all the more important to do something for some select watersheds.
I don't think trying to eradicate brown trout as a whole is feasible but I certainly think it's doable and important to attempt to in just a few areas.
I won't get into a long drawn out discussion on those details, but my point here is to say that your statement is true and should be all the more reason to concentrate an effort somewhere to preservation of the species. I think it's in poor form to do as some have, and just throw our arms up and wipe our hands clean of it as we say "let nature work it out."
Not saying you are doing that either.
tjsingle
Well-known member
The concept of different strains of brook trout makes sense as they inhabit different unique watersheds. For example PA mountain streams vs salter brook trout on the coast, or even the lake run brookies in Maine.
I've always wondered why cutthroat trout for example have been differentiated, but why not the brook trout? Regardless of why, they're still my favorite trout to fish for.
For real. Makes little to no sense for ALL the brook trout to be a hatchery strain. Too many streams to count in PA that have native fish in them.
I've always wondered why cutthroat trout for example have been differentiated, but why not the brook trout? Regardless of why, they're still my favorite trout to fish for.
For real. Makes little to no sense for ALL the brook trout to be a hatchery strain. Too many streams to count in PA that have native fish in them.
Last edited:
Chaz
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 8,458
Well yes there are, and invasive are part of the equation. The human factor is part of the problem though. Anglers move browns and rainbows where they with total disregard for native fish and the law. There have been places where browns and rainbows we’re destroying native fish populations where as soon as the invasive fish were removed people restocked browns and rainbows.
The same has happened with warm water fish so it isn’t limited to trout.
