PA TU Newsletter: States Brook Trout Face Invasive Challenges

[Hardys]

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 👍

What you guys?

I have not "injected" brook trout into any other thread except this one that deals with brook trout and you are having a fit.

Perhaps you should stick to your everything but brook trout thread.

 

[Hardys]

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.

It is a great divide when you couple the beginning with the end of your post.

Are you a man of faith?
Im imagining not given the last statement.

 

[Stenonema]

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.

In your first paragraph you are telling other would be conservation minded anglers what they are concerned with and then you tell them about themselves. Selfish and pathetic are strong words used to describe others who also share our great resources in Pennsylvania with you.
No matter how you stack it that is disrespectful. Do you catch fish by throwing stones in the pool first?
Don't you think it would be helpful if we would stop the introduction of non-native fish over our wild trout before we divide the ranks? I'm thinking you might agree that we should stop altering nature first and see what we got before we make nature better. Someone very smart once said to me, "It is entirely a human construct to view nature at any point as pristine."
I believe that every year we stock over low density populations of our native brook trout we threaten the loss of irreplaceable genetics. The threat of wild brown trout is a future fight. What is the point of having that fight now? We don't even value our native brook trout enough to not do the one thing we have complete control over?
Your last statement is again just throwing stones. In what way are you protecting brook trout? You are telling people about themselves.
I live in a world where nature has the final word not science. I know the science. I've read the studies. It is our understanding of nature. It's very important but it is not the law. I will always exercise my right to value what I want in the environment around me. Nature has forced me to accept loss.
I just think there is much more to be considered before attempting to alter nature backwards to a better time.

 

[Stenonema]

It is a great divide when you couple the beginning with the end of your post.

Are you a man of faith?
Im imagining not given the last statement.

Who wrote the laws that govern the balance making all life possible on this planet?

Since you asked, Absolutely yes!

If I'm allowed a guess it would be that you are not a man of faith.

 

[Hardys]

You would be very wrong.

That person does sound very smart but I also disagree with their assessment. A human construct to think nature was ever pristine?
I think the term "human construct " is a human construct overused in an attempt to generalize away uncomfortable truths.

Pristine is define as:
in its original condition; unspoiled.

This is not a human construct. If you are a man of faith you would know nature , the creation was created before us. It's condition was pristine, before our fallen nature so in that essence, the world was pristine, as with us, before our fall.

Your friend while intelligent, denys the power of God and thus his knowledge is flawed.

In my view we were given dominion over the Earth to subdue it. That means to bring under control especially by an exertion of the will, but not our own will, instead God's.

We are stewards and caretakers of the Earth. That is a great responsibility and gift bestowed upon man, so great and careful consideration should go into altering it. We have fail that mission like so many.

In my opinion, and you are free to disagree, yes we should attempt to rectify "past sins" by restoring the Earth back to created order or as close as we know it to be. You could argue brook trout came after the fall and that would hold more validity to me than your past arguments in this thread and others. I can see nothing more fitting, as far as environmentally to PA trout fishing, than undoing things greed has caused us to do and bring back created order all for the glory of God.

Is it possible? Probably not in most cases, but that isn't the point either.

However, I disagree, most people do not know Pennsylvania is capable of better. Nor do I believe they care. It's what got our fisheries where they are now.
Sin is a powerful thing. It doesn't stop with sportsman, just because they fish.

In my world, this world, nature is the creation and has no say in the matters of God and how he chooses to run it.

Climate change, oil leaks, shortages, drought, famine, pestilence, war....
He is going to see who relies on him and bends their knee to him or bends it to the creation.

It isn't the brook trout guys bending you to their will, they don't have that kind of power. Natural man will do as he pleases.

The regenerate will do as the Father pleases and it is what brings him glory through his Son, Jesus Christ.


So I think this is "our divide in thought" given your statements. Nature has no say to me. However, I agree with your thoughts on stocking over wild fish.
Man made rubber trout are just terrible in general 🙂

But these are just my views on the subject matter, I spend my time trying to win souls not fish.

 

[Stenonema]

You would be very wrong.

That person does sound very smart but I also disagree with their assessment. A human construct to think nature was ever pristine?
I think the term "human construct " is a human construct overused in an attempt to generalize away uncomfortable truths.

Pristine is define as:
in its original condition; unspoiled.

This is not a human construct. If you are a man of faith you would know nature , the creation was created before us. It's condition was pristine, before our fallen nature so in that essence, the world was pristine, as with us, before our fall.

Your friend while intelligent, denys the power of God and thus his knowledge is flawed.

In my view we were given dominion over the Earth to subdue it. That means to bring under control especially by an exertion of the will, but not our own will, instead God's.

We are stewards and caretakers of the Earth. That is a great responsibility and gift bestowed upon man, so great and careful consideration should go into altering it. We have fail that mission like so many.

In my opinion, and you are free to disagree, yes we should attempt to rectify "past sins" by restoring the Earth back to created order or as close as we know it to be. You could argue brook trout came after the fall and that would hold more validity to me than your past arguments in this thread and others. I can see nothing more fitting, as far as environmentally to PA trout fishing, than undoing things greed has caused us to do and bring back created order all for the glory of God.

Is it possible? Probably not in most cases, but that isn't the point either.

However, I disagree, most people do not know Pennsylvania is capable of better. Nor do I believe they care. It's what got our fisheries where they are now.
Sin is a powerful thing. It doesn't stop with sportsman, just because they fish.

In my world, this world, nature is the creation and has no say in the matters of God and how he chooses to run it.

Climate change, oil leaks, shortages, drought, famine, pestilence, war....
He is going to see who relies on him and bends their knee to him or bends it to the creation.

It isn't the brook trout guys bending you to their will, they don't have that kind of power. Natural man will do as he pleases.

The regenerate will do as the Father pleases and it is what brings him glory through his Son, Jesus Christ.


So I think this is "our divide in thought" given your statements. Nature has no say to me. However, I agree with your thoughts on stocking over wild fish.
Man made rubber trout are just terrible in general 🙂

But these are just my views on the subject matter, I spend my time trying to win souls not fish.

What uncomfortable truth is being conveniently explained away by the acceptance that the notion of making nature more pristine is anything other than an act of human arrogance based around the construct that we can right the past environmental sins by altering nature back to a static time based on our own arrival here on this continent. What uncomfortable truth do you speak of?
Nature is always in motion. It has to be. That means change is part of that.
The laws of nature that govern balance are his laws, not ours.
The past sins of not valuing enough what we currently have enough to protect it and the belief that we are justified in deciding what should live where on this planet are what got us here. Both of these sins are still prevalent in the line of thinking that you project.
Everything we touch and alter is made unnatural by definition. It's not that I don't value the brook trout or even believe in restoration in some cases it's that I am growing ever more conscious about human interference in the natural order of things.
You mention God runs nature. Nature has no say.
In the movie do you remember the scene where he has the boys along the river and he holds up a rock. He says,"Over a half a billion years ago rain fell on mud and mud became rock, under the rocks are the words and if you listen all your life you may hear them".
What words do you think you might hear.
I believe nature is an intelligent thing. Not understanding or hearing the words does not impugn that nature is not intelligent, it speaks to our communication skills or lack of time spent listening.
If nature has no say then science becomes the gospel of a new religion. History should have taught us that blindly following science is a dangerous thing.
Maybe I see that a different gospel. I feel a connection to his creation through a lifetime of connectedness. I have lived my life prioritizing that connectedness. He speaks to me through his creation and its humbling.
There has been no pollution that has destroyed more than human arrogance. I see no greater example today of human arrogance than science deciding for nature itself what should live where on this planet based on our own existence and arrival here on this continent. That is all us. There is no God in that just us and we are flawed. We are God in that instance. The Laws that govern existence apply to us. Those laws are his.

 

[Hardys]

What uncomfortable truth is being conveniently explained away by the acceptance that the notion of making nature more pristine is anything other than an act of human arrogance based around the construct that we can right the past environmental sins by altering nature back to a static time based on our own arrival here on this continent. What uncomfortable truth do you speak of?
Nature is always in motion. It has to be. That means change is part of that.
The laws of nature that govern balance are his laws, not ours.
The past sins of not valuing enough what we currently have enough to protect it and the belief that we are justified in deciding what should live where on this planet are what got us here. Both of these sins are still prevalent in the line of thinking that you project.
Everything we touch and alter is made unnatural by definition. It's not that I don't value the brook trout or even believe in restoration in some cases it's that I am growing ever more conscious about human interference in the natural order of things.
You mention God runs nature. Nature has no say.
In the movie do you remember the scene where he has the boys along the river and he holds up a rock. He says,"Over a half a billion years ago rain fell on mud and mud became rock, under the rocks are the words and if you listen all your life you may hear them".
What words do you think you might hear.
I believe nature is an intelligent thing. Not understanding or hearing the words does not impugn that nature is not intelligent, it speaks to our communication skills or lack of time spent listening.
If nature has no say then science becomes the gospel of a new religion. History should have taught us that blindly following science is a dangerous thing.
Maybe I see that a different gospel. I feel a connection to his creation through a lifetime of connectedness. I have lived my life prioritizing that connectedness. He speaks to me through his creation and its humbling.
There has been no pollution that has destroyed more than human arrogance. I see no greater example today of human arrogance than science deciding for nature itself what should live where on this planet based on our own existence and arrival here on this continent. That is all us. There is no God in that just us and we are flawed. We are God in that instance. The Laws that govern existence apply to us. Those laws are his.

I'm saying the term "human construct" has been over used to the point of being meaningless.
Especially in the way your friend used it.
The fact remains the creation was pristine directly after creation. To say otherwise is to deny the power of God, his written testimony and assume he makes mistakes.

What got us here is sin, through the disobedience of his commands and word.
Nothing more.

No Sir, I value you what I have. It is not my line of thinking that I don't, nor is it my line of thinking to decide what should live or die. I am not projecting that line of thinking at all. To the contrary, that is exactly what Iam saying. At no point what so ever have I called for the eradication of anything, but rather the restoration, where feasible, of a species dieing out.


As far as these words under the rock from what ever movie, I suspect I would hear nothing. Nature is not an intelligent being with a soul. It is a creation for us, for his glory. Paganism does not mix well with the written Word.

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

The Word tells us that, For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

We do not hear the testimony of God through nature, we see it. We hear the testimony through the written Word and through the gospel of Christ.

It also tells us:
It's one of the first things God asked of us in Genesis 2:15, after the creation of mankind. Likewise, there are examples in Jeremiah 2:7 and Deuteronomy 11:12 of how God looks over his creation. We are stewards of the earth, and we have a responsibility to care for it.

This clearly, to me, would include brook trout restoration where feasible. If we are to care for the Earth and all God's creations, it does not mean we give up on those critters, nor am I saying you have.

It's great the creation "speaks" to you about the divine creator, but I caution with that "connectedness" or unity you feel through it. Not all things in creation are good. I would advise to turn to his written word to find his commands and will. He speaks to us through his Son.

The laws that govern nature are his, along with his laws that govern us.

Fisher of men over fish. The gospel of Christ is bigger than any fisheries management perspective you may desire. Either we do things according to his Word, in accordance with his will and for his glory or we are just doing it for ourselves.

How will this lead people to Christ and how can I use it for that purpose, is what you should be asking.

I'll leave you with that thought.
I wish you well.

 

[Stenonema]

I'm saying the term "human construct" has been over used to the point of being meaningless.
Especially in the way your friend used it.
The fact remains the creation was pristine directly after creation. To say otherwise is to deny the power of God, his written testimony and assume he makes mistakes.

What got us here is sin, through the disobedience of his commands and word.
Nothing more.

No Sir, I value you what I have. It is not my line of thinking that I don't, nor is it my line of thinking to decide what should live or die. I am not projecting that line of thinking at all. To the contrary, that is exactly what Iam saying. At no point what so ever have I called for the eradication of anything, but rather the restoration, where feasible, of a species dieing out.


As far as these words under the rock from what ever movie, I suspect I would hear nothing. Nature is not an intelligent being with a soul. It is a creation for us, for his glory. Paganism does not mix well with the written Word.

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

The Word tells us that, For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

We do not hear the testimony of God through nature, we see it. We hear the testimony through the written Word and through the gospel of Christ.

It also tells us:
It's one of the first things God asked of us in Genesis 2:15, after the creation of mankind. Likewise, there are examples in Jeremiah 2:7 and Deuteronomy 11:12 of how God looks over his creation. We are stewards of the earth, and we have a responsibility to care for it.

This clearly, to me, would include brook trout restoration where feasible. If we are to care for the Earth and all God's creations, it does not mean we give up on those critters, nor am I saying you have.

It's great the creation "speaks" to you about the divine creator, but I caution with that "connectedness" or unity you feel through it. Not all things in creation are good. I would advise to turn to his written word to find his commands and will. He speaks to us through his Son.

The laws that govern nature are his, along with his laws that govern us.

Fisher of men over fish. The gospel of Christ is bigger than any fisheries management perspective you may desire. Either we do things according to his Word, in accordance with his will and for his glory or we are just doing it for ourselves.

How will this lead people to Christ and how can I use it for that purpose, is what you should be asking.

I'll leave you with that thought.
I wish you well.

I am grateful for having instilled in me the desire to pursue his truth through his creation. If you know his son and what his life meant to us as a sacrifice you know a governing law of nature and our existence which is, (From death comes life). God and Nature force us to humbly accept loss. That truth is not of us. On this earth as in heaven God is king. What does God say about human arrogance?

The discussion you were attempting to have while being disrespectful of others was to cast the shade of our own past environmental sins onto an innocent player in the game to justify a cleansing to restore a new and old balance.
Meanwhile we still stock propagated trout over our wild trout unable to speak with one voice as concerned anglers.
We are busy fighting over which wild trout deserves more respect and value. We lack a mature relationship to nature. Attempting to blow one candle out to make another burn brighter is a projection of a 'mans world', survival technique onto the natural one by the demonization of the brown trout. Not one brook trout was made more valuable or given more protection by the demonization of the brown trout.

HIs creation was pristine at its birth. I hear you on that. I'm saying that the laws that govern life which are his are and always have been pristine, perfect, divine. . Are you hearing me? It is those laws that form the words under the rocks that can only be heard by a mature relationship over a lifetime of listening for them. The Movie... A river runs through it. You must be kidding me that you didn't understand that reference.
I believe you may be confusing how you feel with the truth made possible by your adolescent relationship to nature itself.
There can be nothing less relevant to truth than how we feel. I am going to continue to say that is true until someone can show me that they can stop a hurricane, forest fire, volcano, earth quake or tsunami based on how they feel.
Time like flowing water can only be stepped into once.
What part of the God fearing man justifies hurling insults at a man who is trying to stop the plainting of weeds in our garden so we can pick them. You are arguing that the tomatoes are more valuable than the potatoes. We won't know what either is capable of producing until we stop planting weeds. Let's stop planting weeds first, then we can argue about the arrangement.
Reading the bible and quoting scripture is not a relationship to God. Some of his words we are not entitled to. We must earn them. Same as Joy. No-one is entitled to Joy. The only way to receive joy is to accept who earned it for us. Be more humble my friend for the meek shall inherit the earth.

 

[Silent Ocelot]

In your first paragraph you are telling other would be conservation minded anglers what they are concerned with and then you tell them about themselves. Selfish and pathetic are strong words used to describe others who also share our great resources in Pennsylvania with you.
No matter how you stack it that is disrespectful. Do you catch fish by throwing stones in the pool first?
Don't you think it would be helpful if we would stop the introduction of non-native fish over our wild trout before we divide the ranks? I'm thinking you might agree that we should stop altering nature first and see what we got before we make nature better. Someone very smart once said to me, "It is entirely a human construct to view nature at any point as pristine."
I believe that every year we stock over low density populations of our native brook trout we threaten the loss of irreplaceable genetics. The threat of wild brown trout is a future fight. What is the point of having that fight now? We don't even value our native brook trout enough to not do the one thing we have complete control over?
Your last statement is again just throwing stones. In what way are you protecting brook trout? You are telling people about themselves.
I live in a world where nature has the final word not science. I know the science. I've read the studies. It is our understanding of nature. It's very important but it is not the law. I will always exercise my right to value what I want in the environment around me. Nature has forced me to accept loss.
I just think there is much more to be considered before attempting to alter nature backwards to a better time.

Perhaps I should have worded that first paragraph better. I need to take a writers course.

I guess I was talking about the two main factions of anglers. On one hand you have "true conservationists", those who put the environment first, even if that implies for a less exciting fishery. On the other hand you have anglers that wish to promote a fishery in terms of how well it will fish, even if the artificially introduced species negatively impact the environment. This is a poor way of thinking as environmental impact should precede promoting a fishery due to how well it fishes.

Disrespectful you say? Not in the slightest, I'm calling it what it is. I don't concern myself with how one feels about a certain topic, I am concerned with objective and scientifically backed truth. Today the conservationists are the extremists and labeled as "species elitists", a horrendously and laughably misconstrued name. I don't prefer one species over another, I just want the species of fish that once dominated a particular watershed to always be the fish the dominates that watershed unless a NATUTAL factor dictates otherwise. Disrespectful is stocking fish without any regard to how it impacts the environment all for the sake of license sales. Disrespectful is breeding fish for the sole purpose to be slaughtered on opening day of trout season just to fill Elmer Powerbaitin' Fudd's fridge. Disrespectful is is genetically degrading fish to the point where they can hardly function.

And no, I don't think the introduction of stocking fish over native fish should be stopped in discussions because it is such a pertinent issue, one of the top issues for the better of the environment in of itself. It is scientifically backed. The fight against brown trout is not a future fight because it is such a massive problem that cannot simply be ignored. The point is protecting genes that will be lost to the sands of time if we do not act. My last statement was spot on. I will say that I am not actively involved in conservation at any level, I am just piggy-backing what other people that I value have said and what fishery biologists say. I guess that makes me "a sinner" too because I am not actively involved in protecting the environment. Throw me to the wolves if you will...

Nature has the final word, but we can choose to help it instead of trying to fight it, ignore the problems we caused on it, or try to impose our will upon it. "Science is important but not the law" but why not use the science to help better the environment?

You may choose to value you what you like, that is your own prerogative.

There is a lot to be considered, but issues should be addressed based of their level of impact and the severity of issue if it is left unattended. I agree, we can never go back in time and make it the way it was, but I think it's a novel idea to correct things in an attempt to make amends. That's all I want to see happen.

This wasn't directed at you, I'm not attacking you as a person, just voicing my opinions and venting a little on issues that should have been corrected long ago if fishery biologists were listened to.

 

[Stenonema]

Perhaps I should have worded that first paragraph better. I need to take a writers course.

I guess I was talking about the two main factions of anglers. On one hand you have "true conservationists", those who put the environment first, even if that implies for a less exciting fishery. On the other hand you have anglers that wish to promote a fishery in terms of how well it will fish, even if the artificially introduced species negatively impact the environment. This is a poor way of thinking as environmental impact should precede promoting a fishery due to how well it fishes.

Disrespectful you say? Not in the slightest, I'm calling it what it is. I don't concern myself with how one feels about a certain topic, I am concerned with objective and scientifically backed truth. Today the conservationists are the extremists and labeled as "species elitists", a horrendously and laughably misconstrued name. I don't prefer one species over another, I just want the species of fish that once dominated a particular watershed to always be the fish the dominates that watershed unless a NATUTAL factor dictates otherwise. Disrespectful is stocking fish without any regard to how it impacts the environment all for the sake of license sales. Disrespectful is breeding fish for the sole purpose to be slaughtered on opening day of trout season just to fill Elmer Powerbaitin' Fudd's fridge. Disrespectful is is genetically degrading fish to the point where they can hardly function.

And no, I don't think the introduction of stocking fish over native fish should be stopped in discussions because it is such a pertinent issue, one of the top issues for the better of the environment in of itself. It is scientifically backed. The fight against brown trout is not a future fight because it is such a massive problem that cannot simply be ignored. The point is protecting genes that will be lost to the sands of time if we do not act. My last statement was spot on. I will say that I am not actively involved in conservation at any level, I am just piggy-backing what other people that I value have said and what fishery biologists say. I guess that makes me "a sinner" too because I am not actively involved in protecting the environment. Throw me to the wolves if you will...

Nature has the final word, but we can choose to help it instead of trying to fight it, ignore the problems we caused on it, or try to impose our will upon it. "Science is important but not the law" but why not use the science to help better the environment?

You may choose to value you what you like, that is your own prerogative.

There is a lot to be considered, but issues should be addressed based of their level of impact and the severity of issue if it is left unattended. I agree, we can never go back in time and make it the way it was, but I think it's a novel idea to correct things in an attempt to make amends. That's all I want to see happen.

This wasn't directed at you, I'm not attacking you as a person, just voicing my opinions and venting a little on issues that should have been corrected long ago if fishery biologists were listened to.

You definitely do not need a writers course. You are an excellent writer and ashamedly am envious. I will do my best articulate a perspective that appears lost on you and others.
You define a separation of people or anglers in sides.
We are speaking about the environment. We all share the environment, each and everyone of us. We all have an ecological footprint with the air we breathe and every step we take. All sides are concerned about the environment. Don't assume that because someone stands on the other side from you that they don't care about the environment.
What is really scary to me is that you have as your side the "True Conservationists". I know where that comes from. Science has determined for nature what is most natural based on our existence and arrival on this continent. Ignoring the fact that nature is completely dynamic and always in flux. We have made something so big as nature itself, something which we all share, static to a time based on ourselves.
People are standing on the virtue that science is in thier corner and from there, there can be no argument. Only thing to argue science is science becomes the thought bubble.
Any management, protection or even study of an introduced no-native species can be considered conservation. This is where the grassroots movement pushing to get stocking studied and the practice of stocking over wild trout changed and the Native self proclaimed "True Conservationists" parted ways.
I know because I was there.
With the understanding that we were fighting to change the stocking practice over our wild trout including our native trout the Extended Season petition and study plan were not supported due to the targeted protection of wild migratory brown trout.
The Grassroots group did their best to explain why the brown had to be the target for protection. It didn't matter. Thankfully the PFBC Commissioners could not find a reason to not support it and unanimously approved a non-species specific state wide catch and release management of our wild trout for almost six months of the year on all waters outside of approved trout waters. That would be over 80k miles of regulated flowing water. It was not supported by Trout Unlimited either. I can say with absolute certainty and without speculation on the reasons given for the lack of support when given the opportunity of both the Native Fish Coalition and Trout Unlimited because I was there, my friend.
So here we are having a fight over Brook Trout versus Brown Trout and one side only cares about the fishing and the other are "True Conservationists".
Meanwhile, If we are to be True to Conservation:
The best thing we could do for our wild trout today,
the one thing we have complete control over, STOCKING OVER WILD TROUT, continues.

If we are to be serious about our concern for native trout we might start by showing concern for the introduction of non-wild trout.
Before we dismiss the value of what we currently have in the name of protecting what we had, it might be good idea to learn to protect what we currently have .
The Brown trout targeted for protection by the extended season regulation we feel is an example of what is lost by stocking. If we study it, because it lives longer and grows larger, the impacts of stocking would be more demonstrable.
We should never be afraid to learn. The issue here is funding. Funding is politics.
Thanks friend.. Not a personal attack and didn't take yours as one... I think this is a very important conversation... If I wasn't more humbled by nature to accept loss as part of the deal, I would probably be on that side. I think it speaks to what people are really protecting when they don't come out and support something like what was achieved .. Remember. I was there..
This conversation is pointing to a division of anglers. We don't need to build more walls. If we are to be true to our wild trout resources we should build windows and doors in walls.
I've got wood to cut and that is enough time on here.... Thanks for the consideration.

 

[Hardys]

I am grateful for having instilled in me the desire to pursue his truth through his creation. If you know his son and what his life meant to us as a sacrifice you know a governing law of nature and our existence which is, (From death comes life). God and Nature force us to humbly accept loss. That truth is not of us. On this earth as in heaven God is king. What does God say about human arrogance?

The discussion you were attempting to have while being disrespectful of others was to cast the shade of our own past environmental sins onto an innocent player in the game to justify a cleansing to restore a new and old balance.
Meanwhile we still stock propagated trout over our wild trout unable to speak with one voice as concerned anglers.
We are busy fighting over which wild trout deserves more respect and value. We lack a mature relationship to nature. Attempting to blow one candle out to make another burn brighter is a projection of a 'mans world', survival technique onto the natural one by the demonization of the brown trout. Not one brook trout was made more valuable or given more protection by the demonization of the brown trout.

HIs creation was pristine at its birth. I hear you on that. I'm saying that the laws that govern life which are his are and always have been pristine, perfect, divine. . Are you hearing me? It is those laws that form the words under the rocks that can only be heard by a mature relationship over a lifetime of listening for them. The Movie... A river runs through it. You must be kidding me that you didn't understand that reference.
I believe you may be confusing how you feel with the truth made possible by your adolescent relationship to nature itself.
There can be nothing less relevant to truth than how we feel. I am going to continue to say that is true until someone can show me that they can stop a hurricane, forest fire, volcano, earth quake or tsunami based on how they feel.
Time like flowing water can only be stepped into once.
What part of the God fearing man justifies hurling insults at a man who is trying to stop the plainting of weeds in our garden so we can pick them. You are arguing that the tomatoes are more valuable than the potatoes. We won't know what either is capable of producing until we stop planting weeds. Let's stop planting weeds first, then we can argue about the arrangement.
Reading the bible and quoting scripture is not a relationship to God. Some of his words we are not entitled to. We must earn them. Same as Joy. No-one is entitled to Joy. The only way to receive joy is to accept who earned it for us. Be more humble my friend for the meek shall inherit the earth.

God says a lot about human arrogance.
I don't know why you keep bringing this up though, no one was being arrogant here.

The conversation I was attempting to have was the observation that guides tend to be standoffish to the thought of brook trout restoration.
In reality it was others that got very disrespectful.

The point I conversed with you was I thought you were claiming one had a romantic view, while you yourself also had one. Admittedly you were quoting and I acknowledged that.

At no time did I attempt to justify cleansing to restore an new and old balance nor was I disrespectful. I assume you are talking about killing brown trout to favor brook trout. I never suggested such a thing in the conversation I was attempting to have. I think you confuse disagreement and discourse with disrespect.
I can disagree with your position, as I do, without it being taken as disrespect. 🤷

Sorry but rocks are not speaking and "the movie", A River Runs Through It , is a good movie but nothing more. It is not the truth of life. His words are timeless but not under rocks in a river. That is just romantic secular hogwash.

I believe you are confusing paganistic belief with gospel truth based on how you feel. I get this from your words. However true arrogance is believing ones walk is less mature than another, so I digress, perhaps you should too.

You alluded to what our divide in thought was, it didn't go far enough, I attempted to answered it or dig deeper to show it. It's a huge canyon from what I see.

Some of us live to seek his glory only for his glory only.

Some of us try live biblical and consider the perspective. Everyone has his words, some live by them or try to, others do not. We are all called to spread the gospel. You do this with his words. You claim one must "earn them" I say none are worthy. This is a work you have created for yourself and is anti gospel, just so you know.

All I suggested is we try to save some of the created natural order for his glory and it is why we should.
You take offense, trust me I'm not surprised, I've been dealing with the rejection of such thoughts for some time.

 

[dudemanspecial]

Just when you think a new brook trout thread can't get any crazier than the previous ones, a bomb like this one gets dropped.

 

[Hardys]

Just when you think a new brook trout thread can't get any crazier than the previous ones, a bomb like this one gets dropped.

13If we are out of our mind, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you. 14For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that One died for all, therefore all died. 15And He died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died for them and was raised again.

Your welcome.

 

[krayfish2]

But what if it was God's plan all along to replace brook trout with brown trout? Wouldn't you then be working against God?

Thoughts?

 

[Silent Ocelot]

You definitely do not need a writers course. You are an excellent writer and ashamedly am envious. I will do my best articulate a perspective that appears lost on you and others.
You define a separation of people or anglers in sides.
We are speaking about the environment. We all share the environment, each and everyone of us. We all have an ecological footprint with the air we breathe and every step we take. All sides are concerned about the environment. Don't assume that because someone stands on the other side from you that they don't care about the environment.
What is really scary to me is that you have as your side the "True Conservationists". I know where that comes from. Science has determined for nature what is most natural based on our existence and arrival on this continent. Ignoring the fact that nature is completely dynamic and always in flux. We have made something so big as nature itself, something which we all share, static to a time based on ourselves.
People are standing on the virtue that science is in thier corner and from there, there can be no argument. Only thing to argue science is science becomes the thought bubble.
Any management, protection or even study of an introduced no-native species can be considered conservation. This is where the grassroots movement pushing to get stocking studied and the practice of stocking over wild trout changed and the Native self proclaimed "True Conservationists" parted ways.
I know because I was there.
With the understanding that we were fighting to change the stocking practice over our wild trout including our native trout the Extended Season petition and study plan were not supported due to the targeted protection of wild migratory brown trout.
The Grassroots group did their best to explain why the brown had to be the target for protection. It didn't matter. Thankfully the PFBC Commissioners could not find a reason to not support it and unanimously approved a non-species specific state wide catch and release management of our wild trout for almost six months of the year on all waters outside of approved trout waters. That would be over 80k miles of regulated flowing water. It was not supported by Trout Unlimited either. I can say with absolute certainty and without speculation on the reasons given for the lack of support when given the opportunity of both the Native Fish Coalition and Trout Unlimited because I was there, my friend.
So here we are having a fight over Brook Trout versus Brown Trout and one side only cares about the fishing and the other are "True Conservationists".
Meanwhile, If we are to be True to Conservation:
The best thing we could do for our wild trout today,
the one thing we have complete control over, STOCKING OVER WILD TROUT, continues.

If we are to be serious about our concern for native trout we might start by showing concern for the introduction of non-wild trout.
Before we dismiss the value of what we currently have in the name of protecting what we had, it might be good idea to learn to protect what we currently have .
The Brown trout targeted for protection by the extended season regulation we feel is an example of what is lost by stocking. If we study it, because it lives longer and grows larger, the impacts of stocking would be more demonstrable.
We should never be afraid to learn. The issue here is funding. Funding is politics.
Thanks friend.. Not a personal attack and didn't take yours as one... I think this is a very important conversation... If I wasn't more humbled by nature to accept loss as part of the deal, I would probably be on that side. I think it speaks to what people are really protecting when they don't come out and support something like what was achieved .. Remember. I was there..
This conversation is pointing to a division of anglers. We don't need to build more walls. If we are to be true to our wild trout resources we should build windows and doors in walls.
I've got wood to cut and that is enough time on here.... Thanks for the consideration.

You should see my novels, they are littered with bad grammar and poor sentence structure. I will say I have a tendency to ramble on and "vomit" a bunch of words onto a post that may or may not make sense.

Now, having read your last post I now I understand the point you were trying to make and it was me who was being ignorant, and for that I apologize. I was on a crusade to prove my point and I didn't care how long it took me to beat it into someone. I guess we are in a mutual agreement on a lot of things pertaining to this topic and I can't believe I left out the stocking fish over wild/native trout populations, which is the biggest threat to native brook trout populations. I am glad that we can now have a decent conversation on this thread that has transcended to a new level of lunacy. You have definitely been on this earth longer than I have (I was born in the year of Ayrton Senna's last F1 world championship) and have experienced a lot more than I have. Although I'd like to think of my ideologies as sound, or at least that is the way I'd like present them, they may not be ideal.

 

[dudemanspecial]

Dear Satan:
I, dudemanspecial, would be willing to exchange my soul if you would restore the brook trout to their glory in the great state of Pennsylvania .

Let me know what you think.
Sincerely,
Dudemanspecial

There you go. You are welcome.

 

[Stenonema]

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.

You have now...

 

[Stenonema]

God says a lot about human arrogance.
I don't know why you keep bringing this up though, no one was being arrogant here.

The conversation I was attempting to have was the observation that guides tend to be standoffish to the thought of brook trout restoration.
In reality it was others that got very disrespectful.

The point I conversed with you was I thought you were claiming one had a romantic view, while you yourself also had one. Admittedly you were quoting and I acknowledged that.

At no time did I attempt to justify cleansing to restore an new and old balance nor was I disrespectful. I assume you are talking about killing brown trout to favor brook trout. I never suggested such a thing in the conversation I was attempting to have. I think you confuse disagreement and discourse with disrespect.
I can disagree with your position, as I do, without it being taken as disrespect. 🤷

Sorry but rocks are not speaking and "the movie", A River Runs Through It , is a good movie but nothing more. It is not the truth of life. His words are timeless but not under rocks in a river. That is just romantic secular hogwash.

I believe you are confusing paganistic belief with gospel truth based on how you feel. I get this from your words. However true arrogance is believing ones walk is less mature than another, so I digress, perhaps you should too.

You alluded to what our divide in thought was, it didn't go far enough, I attempted to answered it or dig deeper to show it. It's a huge canyon from what I see.

Some of us live to seek his glory only for his glory only.

Some of us try live biblical and consider the perspective. Everyone has his words, some live by them or try to, others do not. We are all called to spread the gospel. You do this with his words. You claim one must "earn them" I say none are worthy. This is a work you have created for yourself and is anti gospel, just so you know.

All I suggested is we try to save some of the created natural order for his glory and it is why we should.
You take offense, trust me I'm not surprised, I've been dealing with the rejection of such thoughts for some time.

Nature is harsh and without care. It doesn't matter what you think you know, how highly educated you are or what your earning potential is. It will kill you, eat you and crap you out, without remorse. A strong connection to creation is humbling. You claim God is perfect yet his creation isn't.
Some of us seek a relationship to him and believe that pleases him and brings him Glory when we acknowledge his creation as his and not ours.

Allowing habitat to choose the favored is in line with humility towards our environment.

Assuming the role as Referee in the game of survival by the determination of what should live where on this planet based on ourselves is a demonstration of Human Arrogance.

I am a guide. People hire me to escape mans world. To unplug from the distracting world man has created and help people plug into God's creation requires the humble acceptance that how we feel is the least relevant thing there can possibly be to truth.
I believe you feel righteous by your relationship to his word. Do you seek him? Do you seek personal righteousness. Paganistic would be making nature or creation a false idol. Is that what you think I'm doing here. What are you doing here. This is a Fly Fishing Forum.
What is your connection to Fly Fishing and the natural world. When you catch a fish who do you give credit? Where do you give praise if not to him?
How does it bring glory to him to cast the shade of our past environmental sin onto an innocent player in the game?
How does it bring him glory to intentionally conflate timeless words under rocks to rocks speaking.

"Sorry but rocks are not speaking and "the movie", A River Runs Through It , is a good movie but nothing more. It is not the truth of life. His words are timeless but not under rocks in a river. That is just romantic secular hogwash".

If it's souls you are trying to catch the above quote is a willful personal protection not of truth and you know that. If how we felt was truth we would go to the edge of the stream, announce we were there and all the fish would bite. Is that how you fish? Some things you gotta figure out yourself. You aren't going to quote scriptures to fish and it doesn't work on men. A relationship is relatable. I fish for souls too. I do it as a guide.

There is truth in his creation. There is a more humble relationship to him to be had through his perfect creation if you seek it. You may want to consider that before labeling another Christian believer as Paganistic. I'm telling you that a more personal relationship to can be had to him through his creation.

 

[silverfox]

I'm surprised anyone would admit they're a guide on here. The self-appointed forum topic sheriff proclaimed earlier that guides are the scum of the earth, so I don't think any guides are welcome on the site anymore. Maybe we could talk about how awesome we are at stack mending for brookies here instead, though. 🙄

 

[Stenonema]

I'm surprised anyone would admit they're a guide on here. The self-appointed forum topic sheriff proclaimed earlier that guides are the scum of the earth, so I don't think any guides are welcome on the site anymore. Maybe we could talk about how awesome we are at stack mending for brookies here instead, though. 🙄

Gotta know that stack mend if you want to fish dries downstream. I like fishing downstream for Brookies.