Once again a wild BT population blossoms on a stocked trout stream

Sal,
There are no straw men in this example. Ask some of your fellow Board participants the name of the stream about which I was writing. At least one has fished it; more are planning to. The point being made was more important than the name of the stream.
 
Mike,

I see a bunch of strawmen in your example.
I think you know it too.

I have fished most all of Yorks wild trout streams and stocked sections. The name of the stream is not important at all, I never suggested as such, so on that you leave me confused.

While I'm sure you would like to use this example to apply a blanket to all PA streams, you could go the other way if you wanted.

Your example=stocking as no effect on wild trout
My example= cease adult trout stocking, get class a populations (See donegal creek)

As you know, my example applies to all streams in pa about as well as yours. So please spare us the constant fight to disprove one basic fact. Perhaps you should read Maurice's post.

Stocking over wild fish is bad. Pretty simple dontchathink?

 
The term strawman has a very specific meaning. It is does not mean "deliberately misleading."

If you Google "strawman" you will find definitions and examples.

Here is one simple definition:

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."
 
That is one way to look at it Dwight. I think you may be right in what you think is going on here, but...

I think ignoring years of studies and facts to give a distorted view of what stocking over wild fish does apply to your definition of a strawman.
Just saying....continue.

Ps I hate typing on a phone lol
 
salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
That is one way to look at it Dwight. I think you may be right in what you think is going on here, but...

I think ignoring years of studies and facts to give a distorted view of what stocking over wild fish does applies to you definition of a strawmen.

The term strawman means something else. A quick Google of "strawman" will provide definitions and examples.
 
You can say it 50 more times too.
 
Just for you:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Example: After pa anglers said that stocking over wild trout is bad and we really shouldn't do it, Mike responded by saying if we change land use and lower water temps, wild trout populations increase to class a levels even on stocked stream sections.

Original position ignored. Really in all, for reasons we can probably guess, this is something mike has been trying to disprove on this forum for years. So you can either wipe the crust from your eye and see it for what it is or ignore it completely, strawman or not.
 
Returning to the original post and taking Maurice's theme into account: You'll recall that the sampling location on this stream was always the same, although the distance electrofished varied. The longest electrofishing run in 1978 produced the least trout...a single, most likely stocked fish. This despite the stocking of 700 trout through the spring. Water temp by June 28,1978 in mid-afternoon was already 25 C, or about 75-76 F....not good for maintaining a trout population through the summer. Air temp was 29 C....hot. Additionally, the fish community was indicative of annual warm summer water temps. It included warm water species such as common shiners, bluntnose minnows, and warm to moderate transitional margined madtoms, some smallmouth bass , but lacked rosyside dace, a standard York Co moderate to cool transitional species. The same stocking rate continued through 2001, but the next electrofishing sampling occurred 7/23/96. Water temp in mid-afternoon was 16 C, Air 23 C. One stocked RT was captured along with 16 wild BT, including fingerlings, and two stocked BT. The fish community was changing....the warm water common shiner and bluntnose minnow were gone. The transitional madtom remained. Rosyside dace , which had not been present before were now abundant. A few (3) small SMB were still present, but the fish community indicated that long term temps were cooling down. Remember, the wild trout appeared despite the same numbers of trout being stocked by the PFBC. It was not until 2002 that the stocking number dropped from 700 to 300, but the wild trout population was already present and growing in 1996. As an aside, given exponential population growth, it could have conceivably been a Class A equivalent by 2002. In Dec, 2013, we find a Class A equivalent population of wild BT and one stocked RT. The first electrofishing run produced 99 wild BT, with 50 more total caught in the following two electrofishing runs on the same day on the same site (a depletion population estimate was being conducted). Common shiners and bluntnose minnows were still gone and margined madtoms were also gone. Rosyside dace remained. I attribute the population change of trout and other indicator species to cooling water temps over the years associated with gradually maturing vegetation, not necessarily land use changes, upstream from the woodland where the samples were taken. I'm talking riparian vegetation here. The brown trout population and species that would have been affected primarily by temperatures responded (to cooling water temps in summers) before stocking rates changed. Similarly, Conowingo Creek went from no wild trout to Class A in about 10 years when riparian vegetation was allowed to grow. This should suggest something to folks interested in habitat projects. You may not need to even get into the water to have a very positive response in a trout population.
 
Thank you for the last reply- it really spells out exactly where you are coming from with your earlier comments and stance in general. Cooling of creek waters is a wonderful thing (speaking as a fisherman), and I am glad to see 'new' populations getting a foot hold.

There are, obviously, way too many variables to derive many hard conclusions from this example, but the indications of a larger trend are the stronger point here.
 
Allowing the riparian vegetation to grow unmolested can greatly improve streams, even transform them.

The big question is how to get landowners to do that. And not just on private land, but also on publicly owned land.

 
Back
Top