I'm curious to see opinions. Here in Richmond, the Game Department and VCU fisheries Department are at ends. The Game Department wants to cater to Anglers(which as an angler I like) and VCU wants to preserve habitat and native fishes, as a matter of fact, they kill all non-natives they find. So, how do you feel about this?
native fishes
Started by
Guest_pylodictis_*
, Nov 11 2010 07:47 AM
10 replies to this topic
#3
Guest_Newt_*
Guest_Newt_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 November 2010 - 10:15 AM
The conflict is artificial. Healthy habitat with bountiful native species is good for fish, anglers, and everyone else, too. The idea that stocking of non-native species is necessary for anglers' enjoyment is well-entrenched but ridiculous. There are very few places that lack native sportfish.
#5
Guest_exasperatus2002_*
Guest_exasperatus2002_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 November 2010 - 10:52 AM
As a fisherman & a conservationist. I prefer that most non natives be killed off. I do not oppose stocking of gamefish (specifically trout) for sport fishing as most people keep their catch. Stocking also helps local economies which is badly needed. I dont know how your state does it but in Pennsylvania we have area's they will not stock which are not allowed to be stocked ( PA fish commission website ) such as the wilderness trout streams & Class A wild trout streams. I've fished one such stream by the Tiadoughton state forest. I love it. Tiny mountain stream, small, colorful trout that hit as if they were 24". Great on ultralight gear. Shame I had a medium action rod at the time.
#7
Michael Wolfe
-
- Board of Directors
-
- North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage
Posted 16 November 2010 - 06:30 PM
I'm curious to see opinions. Here in Richmond, the Game Department and VCU fisheries Department are at ends. The Game Department wants to cater to Anglers(which as an angler I like) and VCU wants to preserve habitat and native fishes, as a matter of fact, they kill all non-natives they find. So, how do you feel about this?
Well, you asked for opinions, and then only really asked how we feel about catering to anglers and preserving habitat. Well my opinion is that I like that. Preserving habitat is probably the most important thing that we can do to have healthy native fish populations. The second most important thing is getting people involved in and aware of and hopefully even respectful of the natural habitat all around them. While I dont personally think that angling is the most important way to get people out in nature, I will agree that it is one way.
So I agree with both. Protect habitat, and then make it so that people can enjoy it.
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin
#8
Guest_panfisherteen_*
Guest_panfisherteen_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 November 2010 - 12:26 AM
I like the idea of getting the public aware of fish other than gamefish in their local waters (via underwater photography and art), since the media of freshwater fish is more about angling for desired species than talking about darters and shiners that aren't easily attainable or suitable for bait. You can stock gamefish all you want and try to replenish numbers, but if the non-gamefish species are dwindling in numbers, all you're doing is killing off the ecosystem even quicker. That's my opinion anyways.
#9
Guest_mikez_*
Guest_mikez_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 November 2010 - 07:55 AM
The idea that stocking of non-native species is necessary for anglers' enjoyment is well-entrenched but ridiculous. There are very few places that lack native sportfish.
Unfortunately, ridiculous or not, the system is not going to change. The bottom line is $$$$$$$
If we in New England were to have only natives for angling, license revenue would fall through the floor. It would be devestating to the state budget.
In Ma we are starting to see interest in preserving certain systems that support natives like brook trout. They assess each for potential to support natives and put the effort into the ones that have the most hope of success.
The ones too impacted for natives get the stocked fish that keep the anglers happy.
In a couple hours I will be leading a large group to observe my trout brooks. We will have reps from the state, TU and various local conservation groups. There are several different points of view and goals, some at odds with the others.
In this case it's beavers that push the hot button.
I can tell you right now, the TU [angler oriented] folks do not see eye to eye with the conservation groups which are focused on diversity.
It will be interesting see how it plays out....
#10
Guest_wargreen_*
Guest_wargreen_*
-
- Guests
Posted 22 November 2010 - 07:04 PM
The conflict is artificial. Healthy habitat with bountiful native species is good for fish, anglers, and everyone else, too. The idea that stocking of non-native species is necessary for anglers' enjoyment is well-entrenched but ridiculous. There are very few places that lack native sportfish.
I agree 199% (oh woops, I mean proof, LOL), I believe theres not one "better" sportfish than another....in one lake in Missouri they stocked Musky to make a "trophy fishery"......and now a decade later its almost impossible to catch the once plentifull crappie that were native to the lake (as opposed to barely anyone ever seeing a Musky outside of the conservation agents during a electroshock). Stocking non-natives has done alot more harm than good (look at the colorado Pikemimmow as an example). I strongly believe in preserving the habitats and then the fisherman will come anyways (I always do). Think about it who wants to travel to catch Bass in California when you have them in your backyard......but alot of people would travel to catch fish that arent in their backyard (like Sacramento Perch and Sacramento Pikemimmow) if they advertised and knew about them.
Edited by wargreen, 22 November 2010 - 07:11 PM.
#11
Guest_panfisherteen_*
Guest_panfisherteen_*
-
- Guests
Posted 22 November 2010 - 08:31 PM
So how did that go? Did the TU guys ease up on their view of beavers (Unfortunately, ridiculous or not, the system is not going to change. The bottom line is $$$$$$$
If we in New England were to have only natives for angling, license revenue would fall through the floor. It would be devestating to the state budget.
In Ma we are starting to see interest in preserving certain systems that support natives like brook trout. They assess each for potential to support natives and put the effort into the ones that have the most hope of success.
The ones too impacted for natives get the stocked fish that keep the anglers happy.
In a couple hours I will be leading a large group to observe my trout brooks. We will have reps from the state, TU and various local conservation groups. There are several different points of view and goals, some at odds with the others.
In this case it's beavers that push the hot button.
I can tell you right now, the TU [angler oriented] folks do not see eye to eye with the conservation groups which are focused on diversity.
It will be interesting see how it plays out....
)
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
