Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 ... 3 4 5 (6) 7 8 9 ... 15 »


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 19932
Offline
Quote:

JackM wrote:
Gee, thanks, Mr. Obvious.


Perhaps you didn't get the memo, but Mr. Obvious was promoted to Captain sometime in the early 90s. Respect where it's due...

Posted on: 2009/6/25 16:04


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2006/9/10 21:53
From Greensburg, PA
Posts: 13623
Offline
I think Jack is referring to this Mr. Obvious

Posted on: 2009/6/25 16:12


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13409
Offline
Rararararararar.

Didn't even have to click the link, hehe.

Posted on: 2009/6/25 17:06


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2007/7/2 19:40
Posts: 15135
Offline
captain is a symbolic term extended to the guy rowing the boat-I'll buy that-honest work
Its the jerks that position the boat so they get the best fishing spot while you are paying them a half a grand to fish that don't deserve respect.

Posted on: 2009/6/25 17:37
_________________
Obstrification> The fine art of confusing liberals.


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6093
Offline
Quote:

JackM wrote:
Gee, thanks, Mr. Obvious.


The answer to your question is obvious. But you asked the question.

Posted on: 2009/6/25 20:13


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18242
Offline
Quote:

jayL wrote:
Quote:

FarmerDave wrote:
I'm not.


Define "same level as the others".


It was about management practices, not replacing browns or rainbows with brookies. It was more of a rant than a factual statement. Call it an opinion.

For over 100 years, the practice of European Americans was favoring brown trout over any other species. That is the sole reason they are so widespread. then they moved the rainbows around. Even if the species are about equal, keep dumping the exotics in large numbers and sizes, and they will eventually replace what is there. How many continents have them now? Probably all but 1.

Way to many wild populations of brook trout are STILL being stocked over with all three.

On one hand, I say stop stocking the browns and rainbows in said streams, and give th brookies a chance.

On the other hand, I say stop stocking the brookies as well because it could impair or reduce the genetic diversity of the brook trout population in that stream.

I'm not sure what i am saying, other than I hope in the future the new science will be used a lot more when making management decisions. Like I said, things are better now from a management standpoint than they were a few decades ago.

So don't take me too serious on that statement. It was purely opinion. I do like catching all three, especially if they are wild. I'd also love to catch large brook trout in PA. To date, I think the largest wild brook trout I ever caught was probably in Ohio of all places, and at the time there were only 2 streams in all of Ohio that even had them. And that trout was not native genetics. By the way, I found them on my own without the help of the internet or kiss and tell. it looked like a trout stream, so I tried it, same as i did growing up in NWPA.

That trout was from an isolated population of known Quebec strain trout. When Taps (Tups) said there is no science out there to prove that native strains still exist, I had to speak up. Is it coincidence that "Tups" is so close to "TAP?"

I knew of a study done more than 10 years ago, and one of the sample sights was in PA. It was to determine if the other population here in Ohio was truely native strain so money could be spent to protect that tiny isolated watershed from development. Comparisons were made with other streams including the one known to be purely introduced, and a couple suspected of being at least mostly native. At least one of those was in PA, and i believe it was in the upper Allegheny watershed. The study basically confirmed all that.

This thing that all the brook trout in PA are descendants of stocked trout is completely bogus and it is actually the part that is based on conjecture and anecdotal information. Not the other way around. There are always exceptions, but it would be much harder to find a wild population that is purely from stocked trout than it would be to find one that is mostly native. I'm not going to argues that the stocking programs have had no effect, but i will argue every time if someone says it had a complete effect. It is the diversity that we want. A little crossing certainly does not reduce the diversity. If anything, it adds some. As long as the natives were never completely wiped out, then the genetics are still there. Let nature sort it out. they are all still brook trout, She'll pick what is best for a given stream and weed out inferior traits.

Posted on: 2009/6/26 7:15
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18242
Offline
Quote:

troutbert wrote:
Quote:

JackM wrote:
Gee, thanks, Mr. Obvious.


The answer to your question is obvious. But you asked the question.


Exactly. I had been assuming everyone knew that, but based on the questions...

I liked the way you posted it as a reality check.

Posted on: 2009/6/26 7:21
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--


Re: "wild" rainbows
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22213
Offline
I was going to let it go, but now I can't since Farmer Dave had to comment. troutberts "answer" was an evasion at best, but in reality was a silly tautological "argument" that did nothing more than state that brook trout are brook trout.

My question did not call for a reply that "brook trout are brook trout." Rather, I asked whether -- IF it turns out that the only aspect of our present brook trout populations that distinguish them from our wild rainbow and brown trout populations are that they are a different species, but are not, in fact, "indigenous" (the great trump card of the "brookies are a more valuable species of fish" crowd)-- advocates of brookies will need to or be willing to treat wild rainbow and brown trout with the same respect and adoration they presently accord brookies.

If I misread the tautological reply and it is really a way of saying that because there was at one time in history an indigenous population of charr known as the brook trout in Pennsylvania, we should treat a facsimile of that indigenous population differently than we treat reproducing populations of brown and rainbow trout, then I can only state that such sentimentalism has no place in fisheries management.

Posted on: 2009/6/26 9:40
_________________
I don't like scrambled eggs, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked them, I'd eat them, and I just hate them. --Hank


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2008/9/12 12:41
Posts: 726
Offline
I caught a couple Big Spring brookies yesterday and tried to coerce them into talking but not one would fess up to their actual origins. I got replies ranging from, “I ain’t saying nothin to nobody,” “I want a lawyer,” and “I’m invoking my 5th amendment right.” One brookie did, however, express his frustration that illegal immigrants (browns and rainbows) now essentially have the same stream rights as naturalized stream citizens. One little fryling appeared willing to talk but given his small stature, he said was afraid he would be eaten if word got back that he talked because, “Nobody likes a snitch brookie.”

I tried waterboarding them but it appears these fish actually enjoy having water poured through their gills.

I think this is going to remain unanswered for quite some time.

Posted on: 2009/6/26 10:55


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 19932
Offline
I think the only valid way to tell their origins is to start eating them. It's for the good of the species.

Posted on: 2009/6/26 11:15


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18242
Offline
Jack, I wasn't talking about your question(s) specifically.

And I would respond to this latest one, but I don't feel like digging out a dictionary so I will respond to the sameold again.

We are not talking about elk here or even whitetail deer as compared to wild bore, but there is similarities.

We are talking about brook trout. The genetics have not been lost on a large scale and replaced with a different brook trout. But even if we were, does it really matter? They are still brook trout from somewhere in the brook trout’s original range, aren't they? That means they are not exotic (like wild bore and brown trout). Just like our Michigan strain whitetail deer are still whitetail deer and our Rocky Mountain elk are still Elk. They are not red stag fro Europe. Heck, for the trout, I'm only talking about existing range, not historical range to boot.

It would be difficult to prove whether the genetics of a strain of trout in a specific stream is 100 native to that stream. Does that mean they are not native? It doesn't prove that they don't exist, and it doesn't matter if they do or not from any reasonable point of view, even a scientific point of view. It would be much much easier to determine if the genetics of a given stream is derived entirely from hatchery fish by the total lack of genetic diversity.

By the way, that tiny stream in Ohio… It was determined in a genetic study that it is the only stream left in Ohio that has held brook trout continuously since the last ice age. Should it be protected even though there are still some in Quebec? If there is ANY original genetics left in an a given stream, one could say the same thing and there are huge numbers of those in PA.

Mixing has been going on for longer than Europeans have been on this continent. for example, they had these things called ice ages. You know, those periods that come between those periods of global warming. It is no coincidence that previously glaciated areas have more brook trout genetic diversity. Did it permanently pollute the strain? Of course not.

Brook trout are historically andronomous. The moved around even before we got here.

If native Americans moved a few fish around before Europeans got here, would it matter?

As more of a stretch, it has rained fish before and some do survive. But I seriously doubt they would survive a transatlantic flight on their own.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q= ... q=0&oq=raining+fi&aqi=g10

This is really getting silly.

Yea, I understand YOUR question was hypothetical, but it isn't going to happen anyway even if it did matter.

Posted on: 2009/6/26 11:31
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18242
Offline
Every one of them that has an "O" right behind the anal fin is from Ohio.

Posted on: 2009/6/26 11:34
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--


Re: "wild" rainbows
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22213
Offline
Let me try to be more blunt and yet still oblique-- if wild brown trout were endangered in Pennsylvania, would the advocates of the brookies turn their backs to pleas to protect them? Just as brookie advocates ask "what difference does it make," regarding the genetic ancestry of our present wild stocks, cannot lovers of wild browns (or rainbows) wonder "what difference does it make" how those wild populations got here?

Posted on: 2009/6/26 11:42
_________________
I don't like scrambled eggs, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked them, I'd eat them, and I just hate them. --Hank


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18242
Offline
Quote:

JackM wrote:
Let me try to be more blunt and yet still oblique-- if wild brown trout were endangered in Pennsylvania, would the advocates of the brookies turn their backs to pleas to protect them? Just as brookie advocates ask "what difference does it make," regarding the genetic ancestry of our present wild stocks, cannot lovers of wild browns (or rainbows) wonder "what difference does it make" how those wild populations got here?


I probably wouldn't turn my back if for nothing else than nestalgia. Heck, I've even been known to raise a pheasant or two.

But I still say you need to return to reality.

Posted on: 2009/6/26 11:48
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2007/7/2 19:40
Posts: 15135
Offline
yeah but those wild fish fight so much better than hatchery ones.
Just ask any steelheader,they'll tell you betcha.lol

Posted on: 2009/6/26 11:53
_________________
Obstrification> The fine art of confusing liberals.



« 1 ... 3 4 5 (6) 7 8 9 ... 15 »



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls
Do you keep a fishing journal?
Yes 52% (85)
No 47% (78)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2014/8/22 12:38
1 Comment





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com