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


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 (2) 3 »


Re: Plan to restore rare trout sparks protests

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6022
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2009/7/9 14:31


Re: Plan to restore rare trout sparks protests

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6022
Offline
Quote:

tomgamber wrote:
Quote:

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.

Posted on: 2009/7/9 14:38


Re: Plan to restore rare trout sparks protests

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6022
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2009/7/9 15:42


Re: Plan to restore rare trout sparks protests

Joined:
2006/9/10 21:53
From Greensburg, PA
Posts: 13623
Offline
Quote:

troutbert wrote:
Quote:

tomgamber wrote:
Quote:

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?

Posted on: 2009/7/9 16:37


Re: Plan to restore rare trout sparks protests

Joined:
2006/9/10 21:53
From Greensburg, PA
Posts: 13623
Offline
Quote:

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...

Attach file:



jpg  hard creek lake.jpg (804.42 KB)
49_4a565616ed2ab.jpg 1000X750 px

Posted on: 2009/7/9 16:42


Re: Plan to restore rare trout sparks protests

Joined:
2006/10/2 10:08
From Westmoreland County (near fairgrounds)
Posts: 3731
Offline
They are doing a lot of these kill the whoe watershed and restore the native fish projects in Yellowstone.

Here is a link with good information on the process.
http://wildfish.montana.edu/projects/ee_summary.asp

One of the keys to making a project like this successful is establishing a barrier to prevent reintroduction of the exotic species.

Posted on: 2009/7/9 19:47
_________________
Click to see original Image in a new window
Only one constant in the universe, all men are equal in the eyes of the fish.
-GulfGreyhound paraphrasing Herbert Hoover


Re: Plan to restore rare trout sparks protests

Joined:
2006/12/3 21:01
From Mechanicsburg, Pa
Posts: 478
Offline
I think the solution is export some of our fishermen from Pa to Ca. That stream will be cleaned out in no time with a nice 5 fish per day limit. Quote:

troutbert wrote:
Quote:

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/e ... 009-07-08-raretrout_N.htm


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

Posted on: 2009/7/12 12:03


Re: Plan to restore rare trout sparks protests

Joined:
2008/6/25 9:41
From Pgh
Posts: 1212
Offline
I don't get it. Since the beginning of time, natural selection, species invasion, and other natural influences have eliminated certain species, advanced others and and changed environments. This process has included homo sapiens and our influences. The world is not homo centric. Like it or not, we are part of the natural cycle because we are living beings on this planet. If a species is naturally reproducing, regardless of what has existed in its place in history, why are we going to such lengths -- with possibly negative environmental impacts -- simply to restore the past. As the saying goes, "That was then. This is now." Let it be.

Posted on: 2009/7/12 22:10
_________________
"I used to like fishing because I thought it had some larger significance. Now I like fishing because it's the one thing I can think of that probably doesn't." --John Gierach


Re: Plan to restore rare trout sparks protests

Joined:
2006/11/10 8:32
Posts: 1688
Offline
Sometimes you have to crack a few eggs in order to make an omlet. Think long term!

Posted on: 2009/7/12 23:07


Re: Plan to restore rare trout sparks protests

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6022
Offline
Quote:

Mike wrote:
Sometimes you have to crack a few eggs in order to make an omlet. Think long term!


Absolutely. I think what they are doing is great. I hope they succeed and also hope I can get out there and catch some of those Paiute cutthroats some day. I've really enjoyed the other cutthroat fishing I've done out west.

Posted on: 2009/7/13 9:34


Re: Plan to restore rare trout sparks protests

Joined:
2006/9/21 0:02
From Pittsburgh
Posts: 4227
Offline
They tried this in PA at least once that I know of.
In 1958, the fish comission poisoned little sandy creek to get rid of the browns, and restore the brook trout fishery I guess.
I didn't fish it until the '80's, - but I do know it has held plenty of brown trout in it since then.
As Alby suggested, if you don't have some kind of barrier to prevent "undesirable" species from repopulating, doing this would be a waste of time. And I would guess that's what happened to little sandy. Maybe someone knows more about that specific situation
Anyway, I'm against poisoning streams for any reason.
And I'm the type of person who always tries to look at things long term, or the big picture

Posted on: 2009/7/13 9:36


Re: Plan to restore rare trout sparks protests

Joined:
2009/4/6 22:31
Posts: 327
Offline
greenghost,

While I agree humans are really nothing more than glorified animals (watch the news lately?) we are, to my knowledge, the only self-aware animals in natural history. Our intelligence and technology have given us unprecedented power to effect drastic changes in the natural environment.

One could easily say damming great rivers is analogous to a beaver damming a mountain brook, but on a larger scale. Or one might argue a skyscraper is analogous to giant termite mound in Africa.

However, there is no animal (termites and beavers included) that has the power to positively or negatively effect ecosystem-wide changes like humans have.

We are not subject to the laws of biological equilibrium like all other animals are. We live outside the laws and restrictions of the "natural cycle".

It is incumbent upon us as powerful, self-aware animals to be good stewards of our planet. Anyone who thinks anything humans do is just fine since we are part of the natural world is living with their heads in the sand and is avoiding responsibility for their (and their fellow humans') actions.

Now, the question is what does "responsible" mean. Is it "responsible" to try to correct the mistakes of the past (invasive species introduction) with drastic actions that may simply be the newest mistake? We have a long history of compounding one mistake with another.

I agree there are cases where it would do more harm than good to try to fix tha "problem" of naturally reploducug invasive species. For example, I hope no one considers erradicating all wild brown and rainbow trout in PA in favor of brook trout because brook trout are natives. At some point the horse is out of the barn. Let it be.

There are cases where the introductio of the invasive species is very recent and the consiquenses severe enough to consider strong action.

The problem with any solution is the conceit that we know what we are doing in trygint to fix these probelms. In fact, we really don't know enough of the big picture (past, present and future) to make truely informed choices. That's why we seem to be perpetually chasing our tails in the context of ecosystems.

I don't think there is a clear solution.

In my opionion, we would be far better off if we stopped worrying about what is "supposed to be" and started channeling that energy into minimizing our daily negative inpact on all ecosystems (read: pollution, resource overuse, etc.).

Posted on: 2009/7/13 9:54
_________________
We did not inherit the land from our fathers, we are borrowing from our children.


Re: Plan to restore rare trout sparks protests

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13355
Offline
Quote:
However, there is no animal (termites and beavers included) that has the power to positively or negatively effect ecosystem-wide changes like humans have.


Completely untrue. Lots of animals have a huge influence on ecosystems, whether its positive or negative is always debatable depending on what point of view you hold. Most of the ones with a huge influence are invasive species, and thus you could attribute them to humans. But we only say that because invasive species change the status quo, the original inhabitants have a huge impact too but we call their impact "normal." For instance, the simple oceanic algae is responsible for a large percentage of the oxygen in our atmosphere, from which all air-breathing animals are dependent on.

Quote:
We are not subject to the laws of biological equilibrium like all other animals are. We live outside the laws and restrictions of the "natural cycle".


Thats B.S. too. 1. No such thing as laws of equilibrium. Nature just means "whatever happens, happens." Very few species are stable, or ever were stable, as environments change so quickly. Equilibrium was a concept cooked up by those who view nature as a perfectly ordered, never changing ecosystem before humans screwed things up.

And 2. We are still very much affected by the ups and downs of nature. The one advantage we have is the ability to transport goods over long distances, thus when one ecosystem changes we can take from another. Drought in the midwest? We'll just take our food from the east. Nonetheless, if there were a global tragedy, like a major volcanic supereruption, you'd see just how much we are still dependent on the ups and downs of nature.

Quote:
We have a long history of compounding one mistake with another.


The definition of "mistake" is questionable. For instance, we pretty much eradicated the original forest. What was once primarily an old growth forest of enormous hemlock and american chestnutt is now dominated by much smaller oak, cherry, beech, etc. This is manmade destruction on the largest scale. A disaster? For trout and big tree lovers, yes. But for most forestland wildlife, it was the best thing that could ever happen. We have a much higher carrying capacity for deer, turkey, squirrels, chipmunks, coyotes, and basically every forestland animal thanks to those hardwoods, while larger tracts of virgin forest throughout the northeast hold considerably less wildlife.

I say this not because I'm glad that we did it, but because it is very hard to find a clearcut "mistake", as somebody always benefits. Ok, so we hate mine acid drainage? But we're happy with the power in our houses, winter time heat, and thousands of metal tools that make life easier, and give us the free time to even notice the negative effects. Every time you do anything, there are those rejoicing and those cursing.

Posted on: 2009/7/13 11:58


Re: Plan to restore rare trout sparks protests

Joined:
2009/4/6 22:31
Posts: 327
Offline
pcray:

“Completely untrue. Lots of animals have a huge influence on ecosystems, whether its positive or negative is always debatable depending on what point of view you hold. Most of the ones with a huge influence are invasive species, and thus you could attribute them to humans. But we only say that because invasive species change the status quo, the original inhabitants have a huge impact too but we call their impact "normal." For instance, the simple oceanic algae is responsible for a large percentage of the oxygen in our atmosphere, from which all air-breathing animals are dependent on.”

You’re right. However, humans are the only animals that are truly conscious of their effect on the environment. As such, we have a moral obligation to do as little harm as possible. That was my point.


“Thats B.S. too. 1. No such thing as laws of equilibrium. Nature just means "whatever happens, happens." Very few species are stable, or ever were stable, as environments change so quickly. Equilibrium was a concept cooked up by those who view nature as a perfectly ordered, never changing ecosystem before humans screwed things up.”

Read PP 2 & 3: http://www.sustainablescale.org/Conce ... temFunctionsServices.aspx

Definition: Ecosystem: An ecosystem is the integrated collection of living things and non-living things that, together, create a STABLE home for life of various kinds.

Read more: http://biology.suite101.com/article.c ... ecosystem#ixzz0L9vrp7Uy&C

The concept of equilibrium within an ecosystem is a way to explain fluctuations, not dismiss them. Those fluctuations occur about a baseline. No biologist would ever claim thing don’t change within an ecosystem. That would be a stupid thin to say. Clearly there are fluctuations on many levels and to many variables within an ecosystem on many time scales.

In fact, I would say by its very definition, an ecosystem is stable.


“We are still very much affected by the ups and downs of nature. The one advantage we have is the ability to transport goods over long distances, thus when one ecosystem changes we can take from another. Drought in the midwest? We'll just take our food from the east. Nonetheless, if there were a global tragedy, like a major volcanic supereruption, you'd see just how much we are still dependent on the ups and downs of nature.”

I never said we were not at all affected by environments fluctuations. We are, however, not nearly as affected as other animals. And, many of the measures we take to adapt to those fluctuations have a negative effect on the rest of the ecosystem (energy procurement, use of naturally resources on a large scale, transportation pollution, etc.).

The concept of biological equilibrium is generally much more subtle than a volcanic super eruption. That would be the kind of global event that may cause Punctuated Equilibrium (different context: evolution).

Bottom line: ALL species are stable in over time unless some catastrophic change occurs to perturb ecosystem (and possibly global) variables to the point where one or more species cannot survive without significant genetic changes in order to adept. Due to the interdependence of species within an ecosystem, what affects one, affects many if not all to a greater or lesser extent.

“The definition of "mistake" is questionable. For instance, we pretty much eradicated the original forest. What was once primarily an old growth forest of enormous hemlock and american chestnutt is now dominated by much smaller oak, cherry, beech, etc. This is manmade destruction on the largest scale. A disaster? For trout and big tree lovers, yes. But for most forestland wildlife, it was the best thing that could ever happen. We have a much higher carrying capacity for deer, turkey, squirrels, chipmunks, coyotes, and basically every forestland animal thanks to those hardwoods, while larger tracts of virgin forest throughout the northeast hold considerably less wildlife.

I say this not because I'm glad that we did it, but because it is very hard to find a clearcut "mistake", as somebody always benefits. Ok, so we hate mine acid drainage? But we're happy with the power in our houses, winter time heat, and thousands of metal tools that make life easier, and give us the free time to even notice the negative effects. Every time you do anything, there are those rejoicing and those cursing.”

Well, that was my point about the introduction of brown trout that have now naturalized to our streams. We aren’t going to turn the ecological clock back 150+ years. I really don’t think we can nor do I think we should. In fact, I meant that we often create bigger problems by trying to correct the original problem. We simply do not have the knowledge nor the wisdom to make those decisions.

Now was it a “mistake” to wantonly destroy entire forests or mine and use coal without any regard for the consequences. Clearly YES! I know you don’t think clear cutting forest now is a good idea. There is a more enlightened and responsible way to harvest trees. I also know you don’t think coal is the best energy source. As far as tools, you told me coal use in stele production is quite minimal.

The timber and coal industries fueled the industrial revolution, but we are still cleaning up…

Back on topic: We can debate the merits (or wisdom) of trying to restore Paiute cutthroat trout to Silver King Creek. I’m really on the fence about this. In theory, it would be nice to “reset the clock” to a time prior to the introduction of the invasive species negative effects on the trout in question. I just don’t think we can get the job done, at least not without unforeseen consequences.

Posted on: 2009/7/13 13:25
_________________
We did not inherit the land from our fathers, we are borrowing from our children.


Re: Plan to restore rare trout sparks protests

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13355
Offline
I still don't believe in biological "equilibrium", at least if defined by stability. Sure, the populations of one species affect other species, for good or bad. But ranges have expanded and contracted, populations had swings up and down, through all of history due to a myriad of variable influences. I don't believe in any sense of stability, regarding nature, in that the very definition of nature to me is response to change (chaos theory). I won't deny that people and organizations use the concept of equilibrium to further their own causes, I just think its misguided. Any baseline a biologist can come up with is still temporary, you're just playing with running averages on different time scales. The baseline of the deer herd, today, is still much, much higher than the baseline before white man cut the forests.

Yes, I think certain things can speed up such changes, and humans are one of them.

Yes, humans have the unique ability to be conscious of the consequences of our actions, thus we have the responsibility to act on our knowledge. But I reject the idea that "turning back the clock" to "what nature intended" is necessarily the proper solution. Nature intended us, and despite the fact that we harmed things, we've helped some things as well. If left alone, things would NEVER return to what it was like before us, and I'm not sure I'd want them to. We should make our choices based on what will benefit the human race the best in the long-run. The part that would paint me as a conservationist is the part about the "long run", as, for instance, I would see the promise of centuries of recreation by millions of people as more valuable than just about any short-term gain we'd get by using the resources for other things. With the way things stand, our system tends to be fairly short-sighted, and I think thats the problem.

True, coal use in steelmaking, at least as I know it (specialty steel), is minimal today. We still use lots of energy which may originally come from coal fired plants. But as you said, coal fueled the industrial revolution and I'm glad it happened, life is much easier because of it, and it gave us the free time to consider otherwise petty things like conservation. But at any point, you can come to the conclusion that you now have better ways to do things, the courage to then actually change your ways over the entrenched ideology is important.

As for the cutthroats, my ideology would ask:

"Is the restoration of Paiute cutthroats, together with any consequences that would come from such action, more valuable to the human race, in the long run, than the status quo?"

Posted on: 2009/7/13 14:27



« 1 (2) 3 »



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





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