Plan to restore rare trout sparks protests

[Acristickid]

This was in Today's USA Today. I don't have enough understanding to decide if this is the right way to go about this or not.

What do you think?


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2009-07-08-raretrout_N.htm

 

[David]

If the agent kills everything in the stream...what would the trout eat? Seriously, how long would it take for life to regenerate?

 

[troutbert]

acristickid wrote:
This was in Today's USA Today. I don't have enough understanding to decide if this is the right way to go about this or not.

What do you think?


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2009-07-08-raretrout_N.htm

What do YOU think? I think if you are going to post something like this, you should give your opinion.

 

[tomgamber]

first here is a little background on rotenone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone

I have seen it used in lakes. Ted Turner was supposedly doing this some streams on his Montana property. I guess it would depend on your priorities. It does not have very long lasting effects so allegedly you can affect a specific portion of a stream and not have to worry about ow far downstream it will carry. So basically bugs and such will naturally move back in as they have and will continue along the Sinnemahoning that was affected by the train spill. However because of this, and as is explained in the posted article, the undesirable species can also move back in if not completely eradicated.

I'm not sure how I feel about it. I'm not a big fan of wiping out naturally reproducing fish populations but if a successful transplant of native species were achieved, I believe that would be a good thing. But its still a gamble.

 

[tomgamber]

troutbert wrote:

What do YOU think? I think if you are going to post something like this, you should give your opinion.

since when is that a requirement on here...?

 

[franklin]

Ted Williams of Fly Rod & Reel has had several articles about it. Seems some environmentalists have gone so wacko they are supporting the invasive species side of the argument. There is even a suspicion that they sabotaged one effort by re-introducing the invasive fish.

 

[tomgamber]

Please give an example of these "invasive fish". Brown trout? Brook trout? PFBC does this all the time. They call it stocking. I can see where there might be an obvious two sides to this. I would never go as far as to sabotage someone else's efforts but as you said its a suspicion not a fact.

 

[trowpa]

tomgamber wrote:
Please give an example of these "invasive fish". Brown trout? Brook trout? PFBC does this all the time. They call it stocking.

ROTFLMAO - well put.

 

[jayL]

troutbert wrote:
I think if you are going to post something like this, you should give your opinion.

Good for you. Nobody has to give an opinion. It's a discussion board. Perhaps he just wanted to cause a discussion.

 

[franklin]

tomgamber wrote:
Please give an example of these "invasive fish". Brown trout? Brook trout? PFBC does this all the time. They call it stocking. I can see where there might be an obvious two sides to this. I would never go as far as to sabotage someone else's efforts but as you said its a suspicion not a fact.

I supplied the main source of my information. I suggest you search it out and read it if your interested. Ted lays out a convincing case for supporting the California state actions and who is opposing it.

 

[tomgamber]

franklin wrote:
Ted Williams of Fly Rod & Reel has had several articles about it. Seems some environmentalists have gone so wacko they are supporting the invasive species side of the argument. There is even a suspicion that they sabotaged one effort by re-introducing the invasive fish.

You vaguely mention invasive species...I would think this a simple answer for someone who actually red the article. Perhaps you were more interested in name calling environmentalist wackos than help others decide if this is a good practice or not.

 

[franklin]

tomgamber wrote:

franklin wrote:
Ted Williams of Fly Rod & Reel has had several articles about it. Seems some environmentalists have gone so wacko they are supporting the invasive species side of the argument. There is even a suspicion that they sabotaged one effort by re-introducing the invasive fish.

You vaguely mention invasive species...I would think this a simple answer for someone who actually red the article. Perhaps you were more interested in name calling environmentalist wackos than help others decide if this is a good practice or not.

Ted does a much better job laying out the facts than I can.

Invasive in the context of this issue is non-native species in the waterway. However they were introduced.

I didn't call environmentalists wackos, I said some environmentalists went wacko. If you read the article Ted points this out. It's a select few individuals fighting the effort. There are environmentalists (or so called environmentalists) on both sides of this issue. I don't always agree with Williams but in this instance i support his stance.

 

[Acristickid]

If the species is truly evasive- not sure how else you would wipe it out?

I mean setting up nets is not going to catch them all.

What about shocking then netting- maybe closer to all but I am sure some would evade the shock.

One reason I would be against poison is that it could kill other things in the stream- would'nt that be bad?

And even if posion was used- what about the fish that moved downstream? Could'nt they just swim back up at a later time?

Honestly this is why I cannot decide.

Also- are these genetically pure or whatever the proper labling is supposed to be of those fish getting stocked. Seems to me that CO made the mistake of stocking the wrong cutthroats not too long ago.

Signed the undecided.

 

[jayL]

acristickid wrote:
If the species is truly evasive- not sure how else you would wipe it out?

Yeah, those kind are freakin hard to catch.

 

[tomgamber]

The reason I ask is ( and I read Williams in my issue as well...good stuff ) is that /Ted Turner was talking about wiping out the brown trout to put Cutts or Bows (whatever was native to the stream, I don't remember). Some might have a problem with that. I personally don't.

But there are some on this very board that think it would be a stupid idea to wipe out the browns a bows in PA and replace them will all brook trout. Would they be considered environmentalist wackos?

BTW Ted Williams is a self proclaimed environmentalist wacko...

 

[troutbert]

I'm in favor. If you want to have viable populations of some of those fish, and keep them from going extinct, there isn't any other alternative. It ain't pretty, but you do what you have to do. The greenback cutts were on the verge of extinction and using these sorts of methods has brought them back to the extent that you can go to Colorado, catch and admire and photograph greenback cutts. The negative effects are very short term.

 

[troutbert]

tomgamber wrote:

troutbert wrote:

What do YOU think? I think if you are going to post something like this, you should give your opinion.

since when is that a requirement on here...?

It's not a requirement. But it seems like a reasonable thing to do. If you want other people to stick their neck out, and expose themselves to ridicule and humiliation by giving their opinions on a topic, you ought to be willing do the same. Even if you're not sure, share what you're thinking so far. Which he did, further down the string.

 

[troutbert]

There's a good article on Pauite cutt restoration here:
http://tucalifornia.org/Paiute-Cutt.html

A friend of mine is a fanatic about cutts and other rare native trout of the west. I went with him on one trip, and we fished for Greenback Cutts and Rio Grande Cutts.

That's was one of the most enjoyable fishing trips I've ever been on. The Greenback cutts had stunning colors. And the landscapes where both the Greenbacks and the Rio Grandes was very interesting too. If you have a chance to fish out west, I highly recommend fishing for some of these fish.

 

[tomgamber]

troutbert wrote:

tomgamber wrote:

troutbert wrote:

What do YOU think? I think if you are going to post something like this, you should give your opinion.

since when is that a requirement on here...?

It's not a requirement. But it seems like a reasonable thing to do. If you want other people to stick their neck out, and expose themselves to ridicule and humiliation by giving their opinions on a topic, you ought to be willing do the same. Even if you're not sure, share what you're thinking so far. Which he did, further down the string.

You don't read too many of LJ's post do you? :-D

 

[tomgamber]

troutbert wrote:
There's a good article on Pauite cutt restoration here:
http://tucalifornia.org/Paiute-Cutt.html

A friend of mine is a fanatic about cutts and other rare native trout of the west. I went with him on one trip, and we fished for Greenback Cutts and Rio Grande Cutts.

That's was one of the most enjoyable fishing trips I've ever been on. The Greenback cutts had stunning colors. And the landscapes where both the Greenbacks and the Rio Grandes was very interesting too. If you have a chance to fish out west, I highly recommend fishing for some of these fish.

I did a lot of hiking to get to some amazing cutt lakes in Idaho. I'm going out in 2 weeks. I will be at one set of lakes that has BROOKIES!!!!! All the way to Idaho to fish for brookies. I must be nuts. These are bigger than any wild brookies I've ever caught here though. Hopefully I can hit a cutt lake at some point too. My goal is to catch one in downtown Boise. They didn't have them there when I lived there but they do now.

Here is a pic of the brookie lake...