Whats wrong with this picture-by Bob Mallard: TU/Trout magazine’s troubling messaging on what passes as conservation.

[troutbert]

First the second half of that sentence i. That frame is meant to describe other streams besides slate and cedar that have faster shifts and losses evidenced by my use of “and many” /“eliminating” because obviously there still brook trout in cedar and slate right? And It is an accurate description if you look at it in the time span there were at one point just brook trout, brown trout were introduced, they occupy much of those watesheds now, some streams in them still have mostly brook trout, as temperatures increase as forecasted we know that will likely favor a shift to some extent. This has played out over nearing a century in a half, was there more brook trout in there in 1910, 1930, 1950? There are stages of invasion you can’t say that brown trout were introduced and nothing changed since then and nothing will change with a warming cljmate the idea that there is some durable stable static brown trout status quo is ludacris.

We know it has changed, if you look at the predictions of trout habitat loss over all with climate change and continued brown trout introduction on slate runs door step you really don’t think that stream is in the middle of a shift from what change has already happened (however long ago) to the future, you think this is just it, the end, we have reached tota static equilibrium despite chnageing conditions???

Now you are arguing against positions I've never taken.

Of course the establishment of brown trout populations has harmed brook trout populations in Slate and Cedar and many other streams. I never said otherwise, and everyone knows this.

The point is that that establishment happened about 100 years ago. The brown trout have been there all these years.

Stocking hatchery brown trout in Pine Creek doesn't present a danger of establishing a brown trout population in Slate or Cedar Run because they are ALREADY THERE and have been for about 100 years.

Maybe this will help: Starlings and English sparrows were introduced and populations established well before 1900. No one has done further stocking of them for at least 100 years. But they are still very numerous. Because once established their populations no longer are dependent on further stocking. Their populations are sustained by reproduction.

It's the same with brown trout. Their populations were established in the steam train and horse and buggy days and they've been here ever since.

 

[JeffP]

First yes we will have water ways that are managed for brown teout ajd protected thats not conservation though just like a bake sale for jeff bezos isnt charity. Brown trout already took over planet earth, what you describe as “conservation” is fisheries enhancement and no one is gunning for brown trout removal in those streams.

Second its sad when trying to stop extinctions and extirpations of native fish and amphibians/ listening to fisheries scientists is labeled “virtue signaling” due to extreme bias towards an invasive species and fear of loss of personal preference or convenience. FWS, USGS, DCNR, must be virtue signaling too.

What hurts the cause is ignoring the cause. With increased awareness I have seen support for wild native fish in the past two years like never before and so have others.

I absolutely hate that word virtue signaling. It is if you don't really believe it or are a hypocrite. So think of great reforms in history where people said it couldn't be done. Somebody had to push.

 

[tomgamber]

About Trout Unlimited - Trout Unlimited

To bring together diverse interests to care for and recover rivers and streams so our children can experience the joy of wild and native trout and salmon.

www.tu.org

Ok, so picture was figurative. I thought there was a photo I wasn't seeing. 🤪

 

[Fish Sticks]

I absolutely hate that word virtue signaling. It is if you don't really believe it or are a hypocrite. So think of great reforms in history where people said it couldn't be done. Somebody had to push.

I have talked with so many fisheries scientists about invasive trout and they just sigh and sound utterly dejected and defeated. They devoted their life to acquiring this discipline and understanding how these systems and fish work and they know how harmful stocking them is and its maddening for them.

Now you are arguing against positions I've never taken.

Of course the establishment of brown trout populations has harmed brook trout populations in Slate and Cedar and many other streams. I never said otherwise, and everyone knows this.

The point is that that establishment happened about 100 years ago. The brown trout have been there all these years.

Stocking hatchery brown trout in Pine Creek doesn't present a danger of establishing a brown trout population in Slate or Cedar Run because they are ALREADY THERE and have been for about 100 years.

Maybe this will help: Starlings and English sparrows were introduced and populations established well before 1900. No one has done further stocking of them for at least 100 years. But they are still very numerous. Because once established their populations no longer are dependent on further stocking. Their populations are sustained by reproduction.

It's the same with brown trout. Their populations were established in the steam train and horse and buggy days and they've been here ever since.

its those harms we both agree on that get multiplied when slate run brown trout club or Pa fish and boat stock brown trout near slate run and risks accelerating the shift that had already taken place from all wild native brook trout to todays sympatric ratio(however long that took to establish). Dr. Phaedra budy talks about density dependent biotic resistance and the ratio of native trout to invasive ones being protective against further displacement of native trout. So that stocking threatens to shift the ratio towards more browns because it multiplies the negative interactions on brook trout.

 

[rrt]

I am surprised that brown trout as invasives were not compared to the invasives of peoples who came to America who were not the true Native Americans.