Maybe this has been discussed before, and I'm sure it has but I've really been pondering something for the past week.
I went out on several collection trips in SE Kentucky last week and over the summer, in hope of finding, photoing, and release a blackside dace and arrow darter. So far, no luck. My last stop of the trip was a small creek in SE KY. I hit a few different locations and the water was very clean, just little to no siltation, and very cool in a rural mountain area. I thought this may be my lucky day. I was finding common residents, Rainbows, Stripetails, Creek Chubs, but no Arrow or Blackside. I stopped at another location downstream and found a big yellow sign that gave the stocking dates of trout in this stream. At this point I thought that I wouldn't find either of these two in this stream and headed home.
Now, this may have been the kinda of stream for those two to thrive...then again, maybe not. But, I don't understand why KY makes an effort to protect certain fish, while promoting a non-native for fishing. It's like here is a stream that would support the Blackside Dace, but lets fill it full of predators so they won't have a chance. I don't understand this concept. Why not spend that money on stocking Bass in lakes to attract anglers?
I'm only speaking of KY, but I'm sure this is a factor in other states. I mean, I've lived in KY a long time and I do not know ONE trout fisherman. And, I can imagine that most people who travel to trout fish would go to TN or NC before KY. I'm not an economist or a biologist, but this just doesn't seem right. It's like being on the middle of the fence. ok, rant over.
Trout & Natives
Started by
Guest_jblaylock_*
, Aug 25 2009 02:36 PM
33 replies to this topic
#2
Guest_mikez_*
Guest_mikez_*
-
- Guests
Posted 25 August 2009 - 04:42 PM
So called "Put and Take" type trout fishing is practiced in most of the US where trout can even remotely able to survive long enough to get caught.
The freezer filling fishermen generate a good deal of revenue in bait, gear, food, gas and licenses.
You know the old saying, "Money talks and the native fish are on their own."
The freezer filling fishermen generate a good deal of revenue in bait, gear, food, gas and licenses.
You know the old saying, "Money talks and the native fish are on their own."
#3
Guest_fundulus_*
Guest_fundulus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 25 August 2009 - 04:48 PM
You're both absolutely right, it's D-U-M dumb. It's a good thing you weren't seen seining in that trout stream in KY, you'd have made the acquaintance of someone to throw your bail.
#4
Guest_jblaylock_*
Guest_jblaylock_*
-
- Guests
Posted 25 August 2009 - 05:12 PM
You're both absolutely right, it's D-U-M dumb. It's a good thing you weren't seen seining in that trout stream in KY, you'd have made the acquaintance of someone to throw your bail.
You may be right....but, I don't think KY is nearly as strict on Trout streams as TN or NC is.
That's another dumb point...you can't seine in a stream where they stock trout....STOCK! Like people seining is going to hurt the population that they will stock again next year.....stupid.
#5
Guest_GottaCatchEmAll_*
Guest_GottaCatchEmAll_*
-
- Guests
Posted 25 August 2009 - 06:12 PM
good point, that makes absolutely no sense!
#6
Guest_ashtonmj_*
Guest_ashtonmj_*
-
- Guests
Posted 25 August 2009 - 07:09 PM
It's a great topic with two very strong sides ($$$ vs. biodiversity) that is constantly brought up and has been discussed for years within agencies, stakeholders, public, NGO's, etc. Stocking non-native trout on top of native trout is still a common practice in many places. Seining in trout waters isn't as dumb as publically stating you are trying to capture a federally listed species to take its picture. Intentional catch & release is still harrassment.
#7
Guest_FirstChAoS_*
Guest_FirstChAoS_*
-
- Guests
Posted 25 August 2009 - 10:40 PM
I have mixed views on trout stocking. As a kid I didn't mind it, I liked catching a big trout and trout were the only fish my dad would cook.
But now I am older it anoys me as I know it is mainly done for cases of "put and take" not for cases of "helping a population with a few others in their to satisfy anglers."
I like fishing, but have grown annoyed at the "farm animals" and wish they were placed with enough of a population that they could breed and fortify native brook trout populations.
As for no native trout stocking, that could be harmful in some situations. Just ask the sunapee trouts or the cutthroats in yellowstone lake.
I used to find the story of the sunapee trout a poiwerful one, here is a local fish that was killed off by introduced species, one game fish thrown out for another. It was a sad story made more powerful by being local, a new hampshire unique (ok, MOSTLY newhampshire, and some in maine) species. When I heard of the similar fate of the silver trout it was more powerful as dublin lake is much closer to where I live. Then taxonomists had to find that sunapees may be arctic char and silver trout may be brook trout thus ruining a powerful cautionary tale. If this info is correct, No longer is it a story of two unique species locally evolved killed by outsiders, instead it is the story of a disappearance of a small population of a globally distributed species and a small population of a species still thriving locally of which many ponds have lost their brook trout when warm water species were introduced. The message dies with that. It loses it's power when I learn the unique silver trout that died off is the same fish as the normal trout in a nearbye stream and the farm animals fish and game dumps in out local waters.
But now I am older it anoys me as I know it is mainly done for cases of "put and take" not for cases of "helping a population with a few others in their to satisfy anglers."
I like fishing, but have grown annoyed at the "farm animals" and wish they were placed with enough of a population that they could breed and fortify native brook trout populations.
As for no native trout stocking, that could be harmful in some situations. Just ask the sunapee trouts or the cutthroats in yellowstone lake.
I used to find the story of the sunapee trout a poiwerful one, here is a local fish that was killed off by introduced species, one game fish thrown out for another. It was a sad story made more powerful by being local, a new hampshire unique (ok, MOSTLY newhampshire, and some in maine) species. When I heard of the similar fate of the silver trout it was more powerful as dublin lake is much closer to where I live. Then taxonomists had to find that sunapees may be arctic char and silver trout may be brook trout thus ruining a powerful cautionary tale. If this info is correct, No longer is it a story of two unique species locally evolved killed by outsiders, instead it is the story of a disappearance of a small population of a globally distributed species and a small population of a species still thriving locally of which many ponds have lost their brook trout when warm water species were introduced. The message dies with that. It loses it's power when I learn the unique silver trout that died off is the same fish as the normal trout in a nearbye stream and the farm animals fish and game dumps in out local waters.
#8
Guest_fundulus_*
Guest_fundulus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 26 August 2009 - 07:40 AM
FirstChaos, you undervalue unique populations of a broader species. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) works with the concept of important populations, through what are called Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs). This is especially important with anadromous salmon populations where each river run of a species is essentially an isolated population. The legal wrangling over salmon river runs on the Pacific coast is over the designation and management of ESUs, since salmon have been disappearing river run by river run. The Sunapee and silver trouts are smaller scale versions of the same idea, unique and interesting because of geological history leading to their isolation from other populations. Populations are important in general, since any evolutionary changes originate and accumulate in local populations rather than across a species as a whole.
#9
Guest_jblaylock_*
Guest_jblaylock_*
-
- Guests
Posted 26 August 2009 - 09:20 AM
It's a great topic with two very strong sides ($$$ vs. biodiversity) that is constantly brought up and has been discussed for years within agencies, stakeholders, public, NGO's, etc. Stocking non-native trout on top of native trout is still a common practice in many places. Seining in trout waters isn't as dumb as publically stating you are trying to capture a federally listed species to take its picture. Intentional catch & release is still harrassment.
I understand that eventhough trout isn't big to me that it does generate a lot of money for the state and general economy. I'm sure there's often a behind the scenes battle between corporations and protection agencies. I forgot about the other angle that you mention that they are also stocking non-native trout over native trout. This create a lot of competition for natives. It just seems like they make a big deal about asian carp and golden shiners, etc... and how they are hurting native fish populations but then turn around and do the same thing for trout.
Also, I don't appreciate you labeling me as dumb. If I collect in a stream and catch a Blackside Dace I think it would be good as I would let Matt Thomas know. I mean, I could find a population that hasn't been found, or give evidence that the population is spreading. And yes, I was hoping to find one, but for that purpose only. I wasn't setting out for that species only. I can't control what fish swims into my net. You want to argue that intentional catch & release is harrassment, then why don't you argue that everytime somebody posts a trip report. I mean, you can't say that intentional catch is only harrassment to T&E fish, but that applies to all fish and all fishing methods. I'm not trying to start another argument with you, but I think you are being a bit direct toward me.
Edited by jblaylock, 26 August 2009 - 09:21 AM.
#10
Guest_ashtonmj_*
Guest_ashtonmj_*
-
- Guests
Posted 26 August 2009 - 03:53 PM
I didn't say YOU were dumb I said IT would be dumb to plaster on the internet that you are trying to catch a federally listed species. Blackside dace have been heavily studied the past 6+ years. Many new populations were found, many known populations have been lost. I helped in some of the work. One more individual population isn't going to take this fish of the Endangered Species list. I wouldn't be so sure Matt Thomas would be excited about you trying to go out and find them, and I'm certain the federal biologists in Kentcuky wouldn't be. You're right you weren't setting out ONLY for blackside dace, just blackside dace and another state listed species. Look, the law is the law. If you were to go out purposefuly to capture and photograph a bald eagle 10 years ago (when they were still listed) or a sandhill crane you'd be thrown in jail if caught. I was talking about harrassing a fish that is a listed species, not a creek chub or a stoneroller, so there is nothing to argue. Harrasment of a listed species is pretty clearly stated in the ESA as a violation, Section 10 I believe. Not controling what fish swims into your net is far different than what you said about going out multiple times to find and photograph. I was being direct towards you, you're the one that said you were going to do something that violates state and federal law and the code of this organization. It wouldn't be the first time either.
#11
Guest_jblaylock_*
Guest_jblaylock_*
-
- Guests
Posted 26 August 2009 - 06:37 PM
You did call me out and were labeling me as dumb. And, you are right I did say that I was hoping to find one, but that doesn't mean that I was out looking for those fish specifically. I go out collecting in many different areas all the time and you never know what you may catch. Also, I don't believe that the Cumberland Arrow is listed on the state T&E list. The Cumberland Johnny is though.
Matt, it's obvious that you and I haven't gotten along in the past and probably won't in the future. I'm not going to argue with you. I don't know what it is you have against me, but carrying on like this is crazy. This thread started as a discussion about Natives vs. Stocking. From this point on, if you want to discuss my collecting methods/habits, please do it via pm so that it doesn't discourage newbies from being a part of what could be a good organization.
Matt, it's obvious that you and I haven't gotten along in the past and probably won't in the future. I'm not going to argue with you. I don't know what it is you have against me, but carrying on like this is crazy. This thread started as a discussion about Natives vs. Stocking. From this point on, if you want to discuss my collecting methods/habits, please do it via pm so that it doesn't discourage newbies from being a part of what could be a good organization.
#12
Guest_mikez_*
Guest_mikez_*
-
- Guests
Posted 26 August 2009 - 07:47 PM
If you're gonna call out everybody here who admits to hoping to find a rare fish, you may as well shut down the forum.
Should I not fish for stripers in case I accidently hook a salmon? Call me dumb, delete my post, but when I fish for stripers I'm HOPING I will catch a salmon. I'm obeying the law to the letter so why would admitting I'd like to catch one matter?
If it's legal to fish or net in the stream in question, exactly how is that harassing a rare species?
I gotta say, that sure looked to me like a personal issue, not in the best interest of the fish or the forum.
BTW, the fish in my avatar, bridle shiner, is rare and protected in my state. I caught it accidently while legally collecting blacknose dace. It came home with me because it blended in with the other silver fish with black stripe and I didn't notice. Wanna turn me in?
No need, I reported it myself.
Should I not fish for stripers in case I accidently hook a salmon? Call me dumb, delete my post, but when I fish for stripers I'm HOPING I will catch a salmon. I'm obeying the law to the letter so why would admitting I'd like to catch one matter?
If it's legal to fish or net in the stream in question, exactly how is that harassing a rare species?
I gotta say, that sure looked to me like a personal issue, not in the best interest of the fish or the forum.
BTW, the fish in my avatar, bridle shiner, is rare and protected in my state. I caught it accidently while legally collecting blacknose dace. It came home with me because it blended in with the other silver fish with black stripe and I didn't notice. Wanna turn me in?
No need, I reported it myself.
Edited by mikez, 26 August 2009 - 07:50 PM.
#13
Guest_blakemarkwell_*
Guest_blakemarkwell_*
-
- Guests
Posted 26 August 2009 - 08:20 PM
Glad to see at least one person in the argument was mature. Like posted many times before, there are MANY better ways of handling this and everything you have done is immature and not fruitful.
Blake
Blake
Edited by blakemarkwell, 26 August 2009 - 08:53 PM.
#14
Guest_fundulus_*
Guest_fundulus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 26 August 2009 - 08:30 PM
No one here is against taking pictures of fish. What's pushing Matt's buttons is that people talk about more or less intentionally going out to fool with federally listed species, and maybe document it in a public place. Not everyone who looks at this forum is an enthusiastic hobbyist. Black helicopters won't land in your yard and whisk you away, but you are cheerfully flouting federal laws that agents of the Fish & Wildlife Service work to enforce. At best you may be bucking to appear on one of Jay Leno's "Stupid Criminals" segments. That might sound harsh, but welcome to the modern world.
#15
Guest_blakemarkwell_*
Guest_blakemarkwell_*
-
- Guests
Posted 26 August 2009 - 08:33 PM
Did you just contradict yourself? You saying no one is against taking pictures of fish but they are against fooling around with them? Josh just said he wanted to get photographs, not fool around with them. And people obviously are against taking pictures of fish, by people I mean Matt.
#16
Guest_fundulus_*
Guest_fundulus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 26 August 2009 - 08:42 PM
Uh, you fail to understand. Under the ESA, an actual federal law, handling an endangered species counts as harassment. Taking pictures of non-listed species does not. I interpreted earlier posts as defending taking pictures of federally listed species. Go ahead, just don't post pictures of federally listed species even if you innocently stumbled on them. That's all. Your counsel may offer different advice, and I salute you.
#17
Guest_mikez_*
Guest_mikez_*
-
- Guests
Posted 27 August 2009 - 06:44 AM
I interpreted earlier posts as defending taking pictures of federally listed species. Go ahead, just don't post pictures of federally listed species even if you innocently stumbled on them.
So basically you're saying keep doing what we've all been doing anyway, just don't post the pics?
I'm not trying to stir the pot [and I appologize for my tone above, there's a good reason] but I see serious contridictions here.
Should all bodies of water containing rare fish be off limits to us lesser mortals? We might accidently catch a rare fish!
All though this is a relevent topic, I'm afraid there's more emotion than logic and likely to go down a bad road.
#18
Guest_bumpylemon_*
Guest_bumpylemon_*
-
- Guests
Posted 27 August 2009 - 08:00 AM
I agree with blaylock that we need to get back on topic. pointing fingers is hypocritical. im sure if we opened everyones fish closet we would all have a story to be told. josh's thread was....
#19
Guest_fundulus_*
Guest_fundulus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 27 August 2009 - 08:09 AM
The Forum can't control what you do, or what you might catch. It's very simple; don't brag in a public forum that you have been doing something that violates federal or state law. I feel bad saying this because it's not at all emotional, but simply pointing out the obvious. I'm just another grim mofo, I suppose.So basically you're saying keep doing what we've all been doing anyway, just don't post the pics?
I'm not trying to stir the pot [and I appologize for my tone above, there's a good reason] but I see serious contridictions here.
Should all bodies of water containing rare fish be off limits to us lesser mortals? We might accidently catch a rare fish!
All though this is a relevent topic, I'm afraid there's more emotion than logic and likely to go down a bad road.
#20
Guest_nativeplanter_*
Guest_nativeplanter_*
-
- Guests
Posted 27 August 2009 - 09:23 AM
The issues is this: it is illegal to intentionally harass a threatened or endangered species. If you catch one, you are required to release it immediately. No photos, no holding it in a bucket for your pal to see, just immediate release. Sure you can be happy that you saw one. But you have to let it go ASAP.
Maybe some folks didn't realize that. But now they do. So, in the future, let's remember that saying "I hope to catch a T&E species, photo, and release" is saying that you plan on breaking the law. Whether you do so or not, NANFA can't be associated with it and it should not be discussed on the forum. Otherwise, NANFA could be accused of encouraging this activity. So when it does come up, we have to say something about it to discourage others from doing so.
Also remember that various agencies have been monitoring the forum to be sure that people aren't breaking laws. They just might get upset enough to slap a fine on somebody. But perhaps even more importantly, some people who are members of NANFA work for agencies that are charged with protecting our natural resources. Discussions on the forum about intentional harassment puts them in a very awkward position.
Maybe some folks didn't realize that. But now they do. So, in the future, let's remember that saying "I hope to catch a T&E species, photo, and release" is saying that you plan on breaking the law. Whether you do so or not, NANFA can't be associated with it and it should not be discussed on the forum. Otherwise, NANFA could be accused of encouraging this activity. So when it does come up, we have to say something about it to discourage others from doing so.
Also remember that various agencies have been monitoring the forum to be sure that people aren't breaking laws. They just might get upset enough to slap a fine on somebody. But perhaps even more importantly, some people who are members of NANFA work for agencies that are charged with protecting our natural resources. Discussions on the forum about intentional harassment puts them in a very awkward position.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
