PA TU Newsletter: States Brook Trout Face Invasive Challenges

[Silent Ocelot]

I would. Guides probably wouldn't be for reasons I have previously stated. It's ultimately about true preservation of how things SHOULD be. I'd be equally annoyed if the native brown trout populations in Europe were effected by invasive artificially introduced species.

 

[wildtrout2]

Lets say all waters in PA could be restored to only wild brook trout in the snap of a magical finger, would you be in favor or against?
Would they?

afish's poll, "Favorite trout species to FF for" answers that.

 

[Hardys]

afish's poll, "Favorite trout species to FF for" answers that.

No. It doesn't answer what I'm saying or what I asked.

That poll is very split.
Some people prefer to fish for browns some people do not.

I'm saying, I have not met a guide in PA that would like brook trout be restored.

It's an entirely different subject compared to angling preference of species by individual common anglers.

 

[wildtrout2]

No. It doesn't answer what I'm saying or what I asked.

That poll is very split.
Some people prefer to fish for browns some people do not.

Right, that's why that poll answers your question (#20).

 

[Hardys]

So it answers my question, would you?
It seems the answer is split there.

Or would they(as in guides)?
Because it doesn't answer the second at all.
Which is what I was initially talking about.

 

[Stenonema]

Give me and @Fish Sticks carte blanche and I think eliminating every brown and rainbow trout would be quite possible. I kid, I kid... or am I? I'm not as much as a fanatic as some may be. I really don't think I could bring myself to kill a trout at this point (I had a hard enough time clubbing crappie out of a friend of a friend's pond because he wanted some removed to allow largemouth bass to proliferate). I'm not God, so I don't even think I have the authority to eradicate fish. However I do believe that PA streams should return to the way they were when Native Americans roamed the land. It just seems right and I find the notion romantic. We as humans messed up and violated nature so we should try and fix it. It's really that simple.

I find the notion romantic. We as humans messed up and violated nature so we should try and fix it. It's really that simple.

To keep it simple your saying.

So, we as humans should alter nature to a more natural state?

More natural being defined as a static time before we were here?

 

[Silent Ocelot]

I find the notion romantic. We as humans messed up and violated nature so we should try and fix it. It's really that simple.

To keep it simple your saying.

So, we as humans should alter nature to a more natural state?

More natural being defined as a static time before we were here?

Well yes, fix the problems we as man have created, it's only just. Obviously we can't go back in time and make it EXACTLY as it was, our impact on the environment wouldn't allow that, but we should try our best to get as close to that level of existence as possible. Hopefully I clarified that bit.

 

[Hardys]

I find the notion romantic. We as humans messed up and violated nature so we should try and fix it. It's really that simple.

To keep it simple your saying.

So, we as humans should alter nature to a more natural state?

More natural being defined as a static time before we were here?

I do too but mirrored from you.

Should we define the notion of brook trout restoration as romantic?

Is it suggestive of an idealized view of reality when it was, at one time reality, and could be in certain places again?

Isn't it romantic, rather, to think your very own idealized views of what wild trout fishing in PA could be, are better than what the 90 percent of anglers prefer and have now?

 

[wildtrout2]

So it answers my question, would you?
It seems the answer is split there.

I'd be fine having only natives to catch here in Pa.

 

[Stenonema]

Well yes, fix the problems we as man have created, it's only just. Obviously we can't go back in time and make it EXACTLY as it was, our impact on the environment wouldn't allow that, but we should try our best to get as close to that level of existence as possible. Hopefully I clarified that bit.

What I am hearing.
As one of the one percent of the species to exist on this planet that hasn't gone extinct yet we have determined for nature what is most natural based on our own existence and arrival on this continent making static the dynamic of nature based on ourselves. We can make right our past environmental sins by altering nature, un-naturally backwards, to a more natural state.

My thoughts are along the lines of we should strive to make a minimal impact on nature throughout our existence. Like the Scouts creed of leave no trace or the Prime Directive on Star Trek.

 

[Stenonema]

I do too but mirrored from you.

Should we define the notion of brook trout restoration as romantic?

Is it suggestive of an idealized view of reality when it was, at one time reality, and could be in certain places again?

Isn't it romantic, rather, to think your very own idealized views of what wild trout fishing in PA could be, are better than what the 90 percent of anglers prefer and have now?

The Romantic comment was not mine. I quoted it from Ocelot.

Is it suggestive of an idealized view of reality when it was a reality at one time and could be again? Perhaps if you include nature itself in the conversation.

The last comment is out there.... Is it an attempt of yours to summarize my own views?

 

[Hardys]

The Romantic comment was not mine. I quoted it from Ocelot.

Is it suggestive of an idealized view of reality when it was a reality at one time and could be again? Perhaps if you include nature itself in the conversation.

The last comment is out there.... Is it an attempt of yours to summarize my own views?

Nature is to be subdued not conversed with.

As far as the second part:

Another words, you have stated many times what trout fishing in PA could be if we stopped stocking.

Currently the vast majority prefer the status quo.

Isn't it your own views, mine included, brook trout restoration views, all views outside the current status quo that are romantic in reality?

Who is to determine what is better?

Ah I see, I thought you were telling him his thought was romantic, I see now it was a quote.

 

[Silent Ocelot]

I do too but mirrored from you.

Should we define the notion of brook trout restoration as romantic?

Is it suggestive of an idealized view of reality when it was, at one time reality, and could be in certain places again?

Isn't it romantic, really, to think your idealized views of what wild trout fishing in PA could be are better than what the 90 percent of anglers have now?

It's not about getting the best fishing experience, but building it back to the way nature intended it be. As close as possible, I know it won't be perfect. Those anglers are more concerned with a better fishing experience not is what inherently better for the environment, their philosophy is selfish and pathetic

I'd like to point out that I am trying to say that brook trout are inherently better than all other trout species, they are just the indigenous trout in PA and are under threat of being depleted, therefore they need protection. if the situation were reversed and the brown trout were indigenous and the brook trout were artificially introduced, then I would be defending the brown trout.

Brown trout are scientifically proven to be harmful to a variety of watersheds within the continental US. That's a fact. The only reason people can't swallow that pill or ignore it entirely is because their love of pursuing brown trout outweighs any true conservation motive.

 

[Hardys]

It's not about getting the best fishing experience, but building it back to the way nature intended it be. As close as possible, I know it won't be perfect. Those anglers are more concerned with a better fishing experience not is what inherently better for the environment, their philosophy is selfish and pathetic

I'd like to point out that I am trying to say that brook trout are inherently better than all other trout species, they are just the indigenous trout in PA and are under threat of being depleted, therefore they need protection. if the situation were reversed and the brown trout were indigenous and the brook trout were artificially introduced, then I would be defending the brown trout.

Brown trout are scientifically proven to be harmful to a variety of watersheds within the continental US. That's a fact. The only reason people can't swallow that pill or ignore it entirely is because their love of pursuing brown trout outweighs any true conservation motive.

Totally agreed

 

[krayfish2]

I have a conservation suggestion that will have almost immediate return / benefit. Would you like to hear it?

We can conserve 5TB of memory on the PAFF servers by you stopping the neverending whining about brook trout. Just a thought.

Rather than repeatedly trying to bend people to match your position, why don't you say, "We have a brook trout project going on in XYZ watershed. We will send out a bi-weekly newsletter covering the work being done. Those interested in participating in the project can sign up on fakesite.com or make donations to pointlessprojects@delusion.net"

 

[wildtrout2]

I have a conservation suggestion that will have almost immediate return / benefit. Would you like to hear it?

We're all ears. 😉

 

[krayfish2]

BTW, wasn't directed at you

 

[Hardys]

That weird, if it was directed at me, because I've hardly posted on this site.

You could just leave if you don't like what people post. As far as I know, brook trout conservation is a topic to the PA FF community.

Is it common place on this forum for petulant rhetoric to seep into adult conversations?

 

[krayfish2]

Glad you were open to the suggestion. Since this is a brook trout thread, I'll hop off and then you guys can see what you can do about not injecting brook trout into every other thread. Deal? Awesome 👍

 

[Stenonema]

Nature is to be subdued not conversed with.

As far as the second part:

Another words, you have stated many times what trout fishing in PA could be if we stopped stocking.

Currently the vast majority prefer the status quo.

Isn't it your own views, mine included, brook trout restoration views, all views outside the current status quo that are romantic in reality?

Who is to determine what is better?

Ah I see, I thought you were telling him his thought was romantic, I see now it was a quote.

Your first statement might be where there is a divide in thought towards our environment that leads to opposition when protection of our environment is the topic of discussion.
How much respect does nature deserve? How much consideration should we give before altering it?
Your second statement is an admission that you have heard my point of view. You must then understand that I am trying to get stocking over wild trout studied and changed to a more responsible management. I do not in anyway accept that the vast majority do not believe in their heart that Pennsylvania is capable of better. Including the beginner, novice, bait, weekend angler or stocked trout pursuant to the wild trout advocate and fly fisherman who read these pages, if we are to make an assumption on their views based on what I see and hear.
My only romance is in my relationships to the things I love. I am a passionate lover of my family and nature.
Thirdly: Who is to determine what is better? Nature always has the final word in my world.