Michigan Grayling Restoration: limiting factors are invasive brown/brook trout and politics, not climate change necessarily

[Silent Ocelot]

Some people were brought here against there own will? Does that make them invasive? I am just curious. The more I ponder this the less I am inclined to hold brown trout as a species as accountable for being inherently destructive for the environment as they were brought her by MAN and didn't have a say in where they were going. I do agree with brown trout being a problem for indigenous native brook trout and the actions (if any) to stop this problem, but it is funny to think that brown trout were sent here against their own accord and are blamed as a problem for simply existing, a problem that wouldn't have occurred if man had not transported them.

The underlying root of any environmental problem is always man, though man cannot admit they are the problem and a hindrance for the any eco system, that would require introspection.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Big brain time;

I would say we as people who are not (originally) indigenous to the United States of America are invasive because we displaced and destroyed the native population of people that lived here. I would consider the initially colonizing ships very similar to the white trucks. You could actually use the colonization of the continental US as a metaphor for what has happened and is happening to native brook trout.

Not trying to start an argument just something I thought about when posting a sweet pro brookie meme on Columbus day.

It is fascinating to think that brook trout saw the advent of the native people of the continental US and saw them depart.

Some people were brought here against there own will? Does that make them invasive? I am just curious. The more I ponder this the less I am inclined to hold brown trout as a species as accountable for being inherently destructive for the environment as they were brought her by MAN and didn't have a say in where they were going. I do agree with brown trout being a problem for indigenous native brook trout and the actions (if any) to stop this problem, but it is funny to think that brown trout were sent here against their own accord and are blamed as a problem for simply existing, a problem that wouldn't have occurred if man had not transported them.

The underlying root of any environmental problem is always man, though man cannot admit they are the problem and a hindrance for the any eco system, that would require introspection.

Oh yea mankind has culpability in all this as many have pointed out. For sure colonialism and acclimatization societies/fish transport was an ecological disaster.

I just tend to steer clear of that topic because it gets into historical stuff outside the scope of fish management and I have unfortunately heard some fringe self broadcasted people attempt to make comparisons between fish management and historical atrocities and it really upset and disgusted me.Thats why I try to steer clear of “humanizing” fish so to speak, which I know was not your intention. At the end of the day its a blood sport and we are hooking them in the mouth but yea i agree for sure with your statement about man kind has had an undeniable negative impact.

 

[silverfox]

Some people were brought here against there own will? Does that make them invasive? I am just curious. The more I ponder this the less I am inclined to hold brown trout as a species as accountable for being inherently destructive for the environment as they were brought her by MAN and didn't have a say in where they were going. I do agree with brown trout being a problem for indigenous native brook trout and the actions (if any) to stop this problem, but it is funny to think that brown trout were sent here against their own accord and are blamed as a problem for simply existing, a problem that wouldn't have occurred if man had not transported them.

The underlying root of any environmental problem is always man, though man cannot admit they are the problem and a hindrance for the any eco system, that would require introspection.

We're all one species. You can't ask if humans are invasive but then divide the species up into subgroups. That would be like saying the original fish brought from Loch Leven are invasive, but the fish from Von Behr was not. They're all one species. They either are or aren't. It's not like some BT migrated here from Iceland, and some were brought here on ships. They were ALL imported.

Nobody is blaming the species (Brown trout). Man is the cause. That doesn't make the species (BT) more or less invasive. It's not about holding the species accountable. At least if we're sticking strictly to definitions. Assigning blame doesn't fix the issue.

 

[Roofin' Trouter]

Or, have you ever pondered what the waterways of Eastern North America would have looked like pre Iroquois Wars. How many beaver were present that led to a series of conflicts over a 100 year period. What did the creeks like in those days? Were they more like ponds? Did the bullhead catfish populate what is now brook trout water? Maybe bullheads have lost more habitat than brook trout?

 

[silverfox]

Or, have you ever pondered what the waterways of Eastern North America would have looked like pre Iroquois Wars. How many beaver were present that led to a series of conflicts over a 100 year period. What did the creeks like in those days? Were they more like ponds? Did the bullhead catfish populate what is now brook trout water? Maybe bullheads have lost more habitat than brook trout?

Ice. It was ice.

 

[Silent Ocelot]

Good points, good points... I throw in the towel. Just something I thought interesting.

 

[Roofin' Trouter]

Ice. It was ice.

Yep, the first beaver survived the dinosaurs and ice age by burrowing in spiral like tunnels leading to a lodge. The first beaver tail and web feet only evolved after the ice age.

 

[silverfox]

Yep, the first beaver survived the dinosaurs and ice age by burrowing in spiral like tunnels leading to a lodge. The first beaver tail and web feet only evolved after the ice age.

Beavers predate brook trout by about 50 million years.

 

[JimKennedy]

Nothing is like it was or what it will end up being. The wild places we love are very different from what they were 100, 300, 500 years ago. And not necessarily for the worse. One example: tree cover in Maryland was at about 5 to 10 percent in 1905. It’s because everyone relied on horses for transportation, and each horse requires a few acres of mostly cleared pasture. Weirdly, cars reversed this and now the tree cover in Maryland is well in excess of 50 percent — and increasing because of tree planting efforts.

Clean water act has improved the Susquehanna from what it was when I was a kid (open sewer at Harrisburg) as well as other waterways.

Conservation laws can work wonders, but there are costs (sewage treatment plants are expensive).

We need to understand we all have an effect on the environment, do what we can to make that effect minimal or even positive, and correct ourselves when we make mistakes.

Picking a side and sticking to it regardless of the evidence (or picking evidence to support your side) will accomplish nothing.

 

[Acristickid]

The most common things amongst native trout streams that I’ve encountered out west over a number of the native species was-

Natives were found in the most extreme headwaters (where they’ve been pushed).

Barriers in place natural or man made.

Some had to be poisoned to rid the invaders before reintroduction.

These mostly occurred on National Forest or otherwise public lands.

I’ll be honest, I didn’t read through all of the responses on here and I don’t know for certain the habits/habitats of the grayling.

Ideally I think a water in their native range that is currently fishless and one that has a barrier in place.

Fished for native grayling in the only water they inhabit in the lower 48 in the Big Hole river and in AK in the Naknek River. They rise well to dries.

Good luck to the grayling.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Nothing is like it was or what it will end up being. The wild places we love are very different from what they were 100, 300, 500 years ago. And not necessarily for the worse. One example: tree cover in Maryland was at about 5 to 10 percent in 1905. It’s because everyone relied on horses for transportation, and each horse requires a few acres of mostly cleared pasture. Weirdly, cars reversed this and now the tree cover in Maryland is well in excess of 50 percent — and increasing because of tree planting efforts.

Clean water act has improved the Susquehanna from what it was when I was a kid (open sewer at Harrisburg) as well as other waterways.

Conservation laws can work wonders, but there are costs (sewage treatment plants are expensive).

We need to understand we all have an effect on the environment, do what we can to make that effect minimal or even positive, and correct ourselves when we make mistakes.

Picking a side and sticking to it regardless of the evidence (or picking evidence to support your side) will accomplish nothing.

I think one of the greatest misconceptions is that it needs to be like it was 200 years ago environmentally speaking to have these native species.

Theres a huge spectrum between thriving large populations and local extinction.

What we need to do is used the evidence based practices that hve worked out west and in the south when it comes to native fish reintroductions and not shoot our selves in the foot with stocking or opposition of native species reintroductions where its very doable.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Some people were brought here against there own will? Does that make them invasive? I am just curious. The more I ponder this the less I am inclined to hold brown trout as a species as accountable for being inherently destructive for the environment as they were brought her by MAN and didn't have a say in where they were going. I do agree with brown trout being a problem for indigenous native brook trout and the actions (if any) to stop this problem, but it is funny to think that brown trout were sent here against their own accord and are blamed as a problem for simply existing, a problem that wouldn't have occurred if man had not transported them.

The underlying root of any environmental problem is always man, though man cannot admit they are the problem and a hindrance for the any eco system, that would require introspection.

Sent here against their own accord?

Most our wild brown trout today are descendants from hatchery fish eggs.

I don't believe they have an "own accord", will or "a say".
It's fish.
In this case fish eggs.

 

[Silent Ocelot]

I guess what I mean to say with this is that brown trout were brought here by human hands and are only trying their best to survive, and can't be blamed for being transported outside of their control. I am speaking for the initial transfer of brown trout to the US. So even though the brown trout are a problem for the wellbeing of certain watersheds, it is ultimately the fault of man, and must be rectified by man.

 

[troutbert]

The more I ponder this the less I am inclined to hold brown trout as a species as accountable for being inherently destructive for the environment as they were brought her by MAN and didn't have a say in where they were going. I do agree with brown trout being a problem for indigenous native brook trout and the actions (if any) to stop this problem, but it is funny to think that brown trout were sent here against their own accord and are blamed as a problem for simply existing, a problem that wouldn't have occurred if man had not transported them.

It's nothing personal.

It's strictly business.