york county wild trout streams

  • Thread starter salvelinusfontinalis
  • Start date
For the most part, I'd have to agree with Jack here, although I don't know as if I'd make the implication about faux sophistication.

Certainly, I can see the differentiation suggested between the usage of the terms "native" and "wild" when distinguishing between indigenous and non-indigenous fish. Often though, when these differences in origin are discussed, I get the sense that "wild" is used as a pejorative when compared to a fish that is "native".

To me, this is nonsense. From the perspective of an angler, I see no inherent superiority or desirability in indigenous status, at least when we are talking about trout.

But that's just me.

So far as differentiating between wild brook trout populations that developed from planted fish and those with a genetic lineage back to the pre-settlement days, I don't see the point when the matter is viewed from the perspective of an angler. To me, the fact that they are all wild and came off the gravel of a Pennsylvania stream is the defining miracle that identifies these fish as being the same.

Again though, that's just me. I've never been much for ostentation..
 
Genetic alteration absolutely changes the rules here, but selective breeding is nothing more than what occurs in the wild anyway with all wildlife. I know of rainbows here in Pa that were altered for spawning, but know nothing of brookie alteration?. I could be swayed if you have a link to that one.
Jack, its true that this is just specifics for the most part.
 
Interesting, I guess Im a native american then.
 
RLeeP wrote:

....I don't know as if I'd make the implication about faux sophistication....

Again though, that's just me. I've never been much for ostentation..
Click to expand...

Speaking of definitions:

Main Entry: os·ten·ta·tion
Pronunciation: "äs-t&n-'tA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ostentacion, from Middle French, from Latin ostentation-, ostentatio, from ostentare to display, frequentative of ostendere
1 : excessive display : PRETENTIOUSNESS

RLeeP, you remind me of a Judge who could not bring himself to acknowledge that he agreed with me and so was heard to say, during a sentencing hearing following my impassioned plea for leniency:

"I don't necessarily disagree with much of what Jack has said...."

I had these words specially transcribed by the court reporter and framed them for my office.
 
mattd wrote:
Interesting, I guess Im a native american then.
Click to expand...

And then some would insist you are merely a wild American.
 
I shall change my terminoligy to indigenous and aboriginal to avoid later confusion. Thanks for the info guys. Thats why Im here. Always looking to learn a little more.
 
Well, I certainly understand, Jack..

If it helps at all, you're far from the first to confuse sophistication with ostentation...:)
 
No matter what the semantics, the point is that there is a distinction between fish that "came" and evolved here naturally thousands of years ago, and those that were transported here by humans not so long ago. This can be an important distinction in some ways, and there needs to be a way of making that distinction through terminology. Maybe Mattd's terminology is better (indigenous/aboriginal), but up to now, native and wild seemed to serve the purpose just fine. (Although "wild" is a term that describes the fact that they have grown from eggs in the stream, so it goes a bit beyond the evolvedhere/were brought here idea. So natives could also be wild, as Jack was saying.)
 
Now that I think about it, if the distinction is between "native/aboriginal" and "introduced" trout, "wild" isn't the right term. It should be imported, introduced, transplanted, alien, exotic, etc. "Native" and "wild" are apples and oranges.
 
At what point does a introduced species become indigenous? After all, all "native" species were intoduced at some point in geological time, even on the galopagos island. Whats the difference between a group of europeans bringing fish on a boat and some bird making a transatlantic voyage and crapping seeds in the "new" world or a bear walking across the siberian ice bridge.
 
The difference is that we can remember one happening and only can theorize the other. Or, with respect to brookies the difference is that we want a reason to favor one species over the other and the form and manner of introduction provides a convenient distinction.
 
And why does everyone value wild fish over an equally wary fingerling stocker as a superior sportfish? I would say it doesn't have to do with their sporting value, but their being a symbol of a healthy environement. Likewise, native species are valued as seperate contributors to our biodiversity. Their value is only partly determined by their sporting value.
 
OhioOutdoorsman wrote:
At what point does a introduced species become indigenous?
Click to expand...

When man gets involved. You see our arrogant species deems itself center of the universe. So as it related to the existence of man is when it becomes native or not. If it was here before man its native. If it merely reproduced here it is wild. But native fish are also wild. So all native fish are wild but not all wild fish are natives. Just like all communists are socialists not all socialists are communists...ok, bad example but accurate.
 
Brown trout will become indigenous to North America in the year 11452. (Unless the climate's too hot for them to have survived here until then). :-D
 
i would say ohio that they ARE a superior sport fish. if one is to find a large wild trout, it is a much older fish with much better instincts. but that is not why, simpily put, it is a rare to find to have a 20 inch wild on ur line. that alone makes it a better sport fish.
also the differnece between wild and native is a interesting discussion. its easy to solve. native trout are strains of trout that were here before the pfbc started stocking trout in pa. wild is any streambred trout. simple.
though u may consider urself native american. u are actually just a wild american but we are all native of africa. :-D

-sal

JF thank you and i will keep up my exploits. migraines have delayed fishing this week. going out towmorrow.
 
So are we interferring with evolution or just part of it? It just seems to me that we have some vague, idyllic point in time that we feel obligated to preserve when nature is a very dynamic, adaptable entity.

Really, how far back do we have a good record of things - 100 years? 150 years? That is just a wink in geological time and an inadequate sample to draw any definitive conclusions.

Even if everything melts, I have faith nature will still survive, even if humans and trout don't......
 
oh im sure it will survive on some level. and i dont think we have a sample size large enough to determine if we are doing harm or not. but make no mistake weaking the gene pool that can never be good. so yes we are interfing with evloution. that is provided trout can live long enough to evolve.but either way what does all that have to do with the answer i gave?
 
...Even if everything melts, I have faith nature will still survive, even if humans and trout don't......
Click to expand...

But what's the point, if there are no humans or trout? :-D
 
Is a 20 inch wild trout really harder to catch than a 2-3 year holdover stocker? I value the wild trout more for what it symbolizes, not because its more difficult quarry.

Sal, actually, I'm a wild american. My grandfather was an invasive american.
 
Here's to everything not melting! :pint:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top