What do you think of this.
Harvest of browns
Printable View
What do you think of this.
Harvest of browns
The browns’ presence apparently bothered some influential members of the Virginia Council, who organized the BroundUp to rid the stream of a perceived nuisance.
This statement taken directly from the article pretty tells the story, it's politics plain and simple. It's not about what's best for the stream or the public or what the public wants, but it's what "some influential members" want. I know TU has been a fine organization but this kind of "stuff" was the reason I did not join recently when they sent me another invitation.
Two questions since you ask what I think.
1. Are the brook trout native?
2. Is it legal to kill the brown trout you catch? Or brook trout for that matter.
If the answer to #1 is "yes" then it is probably better for the stream and the native brook trout that the brown trout are caught and killed.
If the answer to #2 is "yes" then nobody has a gripe coming.
I don't have a dog in this fight but others should not be scorned for participating in a lawful activity
fishbum
I disagree 100%. If the browns had not proven to be self-sustainable and required continued stocking, then yes. But they do not. They've shown they are self-sustainable and the current fish are wild fish.
If legal to do so, then so-be-it.....same with the brookies. But that is not the goal here. The goal is for a handful of high-minded individuals pushing their preference.
Waters change.....and environments morph as time goes by. To insist that the ONLY environmental answer is to go back to colonial times is not always the best answer. In this day and age when water quality is so much in question...the strongest fish will prevail. Once they're naturally reproducing, removing them is no less a manipulation of the environment than the original stocking. IMO :)
As presented in this article the assault on the brown trout population would seem to be unwarranted but I would like more information before condemning it. Is the brown trout population expanding into the headwaters and threatening the native brookies? Once we have removed the natural balance of an eco-system we often have little choice but to continue making adjustments. Though I would prefer to see those decisions made by fisheries managers rather than an NGO like TU it is also true that sometimes fisheries mangers can get too focused on pounds of catchable fish and lose sight of other management goals.
First, that stream is - well, was - historically a great place to get into large NATIVE brookies. Since the last few drought summers, the brookies have really taken a hit.
There are fewer and fewer places where native brook trout thrive, and more and more places where browns are establishing themselves. When these situations overlap in the same stream, the results usually favor the browns. If you want wild browns, fish your favorite east coast tailwaters. Leave the native char to finally reclaim some of their original range that we've decimated by mining, deforestation, development, other pollution and now piscivorous trout.
A no brainer.
And just to play devils advocate.......what happens when all efforts to save the native Brookie fails and a fishable water never produces itself? Then what? Leave the waters basically devoid of fish? When a wild browntrout population has already proven itself?
I suggest - whether you're an advocate of the devil or not - you check out the EBTJV...the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture...which is also an urgent priority for TU. Why threaten a native trout population with invasives knowing what we know now? Asian carp can survive and thrive in warm water fisheries, so I guess we should just leave them alone, too.
I have stated this before: TU is no Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. I no longer am a member and in most cases do not support them. My guess is that in the future they will become anti-fishing.
Throughout history, species of animals have become extinct. This was even the case before humans arrived. So with or without human involvement certain animals will not survive. The history of the world has shown this.
Point taken on the Carp. I guess I don't see the brown trout as an invasive.
Would it not be for the brown, there are countless trout waters across the country that would now hold nothing but Fall Fish and Creek Chubs. Not to mention that many of the waters being labelled as "Brook trout" waters were unable to hold fish much larger than 5" year-to-year long before the brown trout arrived. And long before the folks wanting ot change things were even fishing those waters. I think it's more on the lines of folks picking a favorite cause more than conservation efforts. But that's just my 2-cents. :)
Sometimes conservation involves thinking beyond the narrow scopes of our own desire to catch trout from every conceivable trickle. The demise of brook trout streams is blood on OUR hands. If the brown trout had evolved to migrate from western Europe across the seas to the US, moving upstream past impassable barriers then the natural extinction argument might hold water. But it doesn't for obvious reasons. Or is "evolution" a taboo term here? Even if you're in that camp, in the Good Book we are charged with being the stewards of all creatures - and STILL we seem to screw this up routinely.
At the end of the day it's this sort of spirited debate that gets us all involved so I guess we have to start somewhere.
Over the course of history, the hows and whys of extinction, and how and whys certain things survive where they do, creates much research and speculation.. Virus' and bacteria are being transported around the planet by various methods. Birds and other animals have been know to transport many different things throughout the planet. Storms and other weather related events have also made changes to our world. The planet is dynamic and alway changing naturally.
Man is just another natural part of animal extinction. However, humans being at the top of the food chain are very vulneralbe to becoming extinct also. And because we are in that position we do have a responsibility. But we have a greater responsibility for our survival. We probably will not survive without getting our hands dirty.
In a thousand years are historians going to write that we let millions of humans starve because we wanted to save a minnow or a lizard? Seems like in many cases our decisions are cruel and narrow minded.
If we took that responsibility seriously, millions - nay, a BILLION - humans wouldn't already be starving.
There is a river in eastern Idaho where they have made it mandatory to kill any Rainbow trout because the Rainbows are hurting the native Cutthroat population. That goes against my grain so I will simply never fish that river. No one is going to tell me I HAVE to kill such a wonderful fish as a Rainbow, nor would they tell me to do the same for a Brown Trout. I simply would not fish that area either.
Larry ---sagefisher---
Read the description of said event. It was restricted to a 3-day period and did not involve a kill mandate of any kind (i.e. purely volunteer-based). AND it's being done within legal limits with respect to regulations. When your cuttthroats are gone, maybe something like this will have mattered. But who cares, it's not going to happen in OUR lifetimes, right?
....."When your cuttthroats are gone, maybe something like this will have mattered. But who cares, it's not going to happen in OUR lifetimes, right?".....
Actually, I don't feel that it is as simple as that. our world is changing, in many more ways than just which trout happen to be found in a particular water. In many areas of the country, if it were not for brown trout, countless waters would be devoid of trout completely due to logging, mining, farming and development practices a century ago. Far more brook trout streams are threatened by development and farming practices than by the brown trout. Personally, where both are wild and self-sustaining...leave them be. Environmental issues will sort out which one makes it....and if things work out well, both will make it.
This is a very interesting and divisive topic.
As a confirmed blueliner in my area, i am definitely partial to native fish anywhere they are found. That said, in the stream in question, I'd tend to favor the brookie.
This in mind, I'm still opposed to this 'witch hunt' style of shoot-from-the-hip wildlife management, mainly because of the image it projects, and its obviously politically-charged inception. Rather, I'd prefer to see more of an educational campaign, explaining the reasoning as to why the local TU supports the harvest of the browns. In small streams, browns often out-compete resident populations of native brookies, and only on the smallest of streams (where the environment itself tends to prevent the browns from growing much larger (and by extension more voracious) than the brookies) have I ever seen the two species co-existing in a stable, naturally self-supporting balance.
So...I guess to summarize: no, I don't oppose this effort...but I dont support it either. :P
I understand your point - and it's well taken. But the proof is in the pudding so to speak. Ideally these situations should be treated on a case-by-case basis. Using two Shenandoah NP streams as specific examples, the increase in percentage of browns in the total fish population (brook trout, brown trout) has had a quantifiable negative impact on numbers of brook trout. In this case, the NPS has initiated shocking the browns out to at least control their populations, such that the browns that are removed are relocated to delayed harvest streams and other waters that do not support brookies. I actually favor this approach over the killing of browns outright - they're effectively recycled into at least one Valley spring creek and can hold over in another which has a DH section.
On the other hand, one of the waterways that border the Shenandoah NP has coexisting brookies and browns, with the browns having gained a foothold after a single stocking event in the 1960s. Anecdotally the brook trout numbers are lower than before introduction of the brown trout, but they're certainly still there and reproducing - probably maintaining some sort of brown trout/brook trout equilibrium after so many years.
The problem with the stream mentioned in the article and at the beginning of this thread is that due to low water conditions for several consecutive summers, the native fish have been descending downstream to find flows that are still within a suitable temperature range and therefore oxygen supply. The brown trout are found primarily in those same lower reaches, so the brookies are a brown trout chow of sorts. They never had to compete with other piscivorous fish historically within the parts of stream that can sustain brookies. Drought summers are not a new challenge to these fish. Hungry fish-eating brown trout are. In this case, I'm not so sure leaving the browns to threaten natives is a good idea.
As to the sentiment about introducing trout into ditches that were completely or nearly depleted of fish due to environmental issues - as long as they're not displacing a threatened species, not an issue. Creating a fishery out of a non-fishery is a great idea, but supplanting one with another seems asinine to me.
MFTG.....Very well put. Thanks for the response.
Ralph
Ralph,
Shoot me a PM next time you make it down to VA. I'll do the same next time I'm in your neck of the woods - we have friends in Summit (norf Jersey) but haven't fished souf Jersey ever. Look forward to fishin with you sometime.
Marty
Marty,
That sounds like a plan! Not alot of trout fishing to be had in Souf Jersey....but only 45 min away from PA streams :)
Ralph
The devil is illogical since this contains contradictions. If the wild brookies do not survive it will because the browns were not eliminated. hence there will be either browns or brookies or an intermixture. How does keeping browns lead to a water "devoid" of fish?
That fishery is the South Fork of the Snake. I have fished this river out of Swan Valley for the native cutthroat trout.
The South Fork of the Snake is one of the few rivers holding the Yellowstone Cutthroat. The goal of TU is not to make it easier to catch fish. It is to "conserve, protect and restore cold water fisheries and their watersheds." Conservation and protection includes the native fish over introduced species. Not only does the protection of native brook trout in the east and native cutthroat in the west fall within the guidelines, it is the very substance of TU's mission statement.
http://www.isu.edu/~keelerne/cuttpage/SFSR.htm
As a director of my TU chapter, I understand that TU wears two hats. First it is a conservation organization. And it is a sportsmen organization. When the two collide, I submit that we members of TU must take the high road of conservation rather than take the low road that fishers too often take. I will always support preserving the threatened native fish. There are plenty of places to catch rainbows and browns but few places where the native fish still exist.
It is this high road that allows TU to lobby in Congress to stop the Pebble Mine in Alaska. We would have little moral argument if all we did was grab and grab and support the destruction of native fisheries for what we think would provide better fishing. If we were to do that what conservation argument would we have if a mining company wanted to use the land and waters for their personal gain?
As stated by Silver:
As a director of my TU chapter, I understand that TU wears two hats. First it is a conservation organization. And it is a sportsmen organization. When the two collide, I submit that we members of TU must take the high road of conservation rather than take the low road that fishers too often take. I will always support preserving the threatened native fish. There are plenty of places to catch rainbows and browns but few places where the native fish still exist.
So are you saying that fishers too often take the low road? -(many people that fish work to keep areas clean and pristine)
Then why does TU represent themselves as part of the trout fishing community? (for our resources and money?)
If so how do YOU determine what is the high road?
How do YOU determine what is best for all of society?
Silver Creek, the statement was made in reference to "after" the browns were removed....that being the intended goal.
Also.....too often, in my opinion....organizations and companies that live and breathe off of sportsmens dollars, talk out of the sides of their mouths about them in a negative light. When in fact, without those very same sportsmen, they would basically cease to exist. Sort of like Brodin supporting Greenpeace....who apposes sport fishing? Or like stating that fishermen more often take the low road, so it is all up to the left-minded individuals within the organization to "stay the course". The goal is to "conserve, protect and restore cold water fisheries and their watersheds." Fisheries....not just native fisheries.
Yes,
I think fishers as a group or as individuals too often take the low road.
For example, back in the late 1980's Wisconsin was in the midst of drought that that was the most severe in 50 years.
Our state council of TU petitioned the state to close streams in the counties most severely effected and to open trout stream to only C&R in the rest of the counties. FFF did not support that nor did the majority of trout fishers. The DNR did not either because it would mean fewer trout stamp sales and they needed the money. We were the only organization to ask for closure of the fishing season. The next year the DNR was forced to close the season.
I don't know of any other organization that would ask for the closure of the season. I was a member of the FFF but dropped my membership because the Wi FFF chapters cared more about fishing than the fish and would not support the fishing closure for the severely affected counties.
Here's another true example. I was fishing Yellowstone Lake where the regulations say that you have to release all fish OVER 14 inches. And it was very difficult to catch a fish under 14". Most were 16"+.
There was an older fly fisherman fishing with his grandson and they had 3 Yellowstone Cutts OVER 14". I told him to throw the fish back but he refused saying that he wanted to keep the fish for his grandson. I said I was going to my car to call the Rangers on my CB and then he threw the fish back.
Now here's the kicker - his vest was covered with patches of TU, FFF, Nature Conservancy, etc. He might have been a worker for TU at home but in Yellowstone, he was just a poacher.
Try this hypothetical test. There is a great tailwater trout fishery but it is on a river that has native salmon run. The dam prevents the migration to salmon to their spawning grounds, and the salmon are now threatened. Would you take down the dam that would remove the tailwater fishery to the betterment of the salmon or would you keep the dam to preserve the tailwater fishery?
I believe that the character of an organization or an individual is judged not by how the easy decisions are made but how it deals with the difficult decisions.
Now I ask you, how often should an organization of an individual fisher take the low road? What would be acceptable to you?
I apparently did not explain myself adequately. Please allow me to explain in more detail.
Your error was in assuming that if the browns were removed, there would be no trout to be caught. Obviously, the reason for removing brown trout is to allow the brookies to thrive. You wrote, "The statement was made in reference to "after" the browns were removed....that being the intended goal." Actually this is wrong. Removing brown trout is the method; the goal is to allow the brookies to thrive after the removal of the browns. As I pointed out this is illogical, in that it does not include the main reason for the proposal, and it confuses the goal with the methodology. The goal is to increase the number of native brook trout, the method is removing the brown trout.
You said:
My post was to show that you gave no evidence why the brookies would not thrive. Your original argument uses circular reasoning which is a logical fallacy. Your conclusion is merely the premise restated without proof of the original premise. That is why I said the devil was illogical.
I also believe you are wrong about the mission statement of TU as it applies to threatened native salmonids. The threatened native species take precedence over the introduced species. So TU has and will support native salmonids over introduced species. It has done so for the Yellowstone Cuttroat Trout on the South Fork of the Snake and for native brook trout in the original discussion.
Larry, there is nothing "mandatory" in the regs on the South Fork of the Snake River. The state has removed all limits and restrictions on the harvest of rainbows, but the killing of rainbow trout on the river is still voluntary. As for whether you agree or not, the bows have hit the cutthroat fishery hard due to their ability to cross-breed, and given the chance the rainbows will overrun the native cutthroat population. The river is open to all to fish and no one will make you kill any bows that you catch; you can release every one of them. As for me, I choose to help rescue the native cutthroat fishery so I harvest a few of the bows I catch, not all, but a few. As a dyed-in-the-wool catch-and-release guy, it is difficult for me to kill any trout I catch, yet I can see the wisdom in striving to give the cutthroat population a boost. At the same time there is a strong resident population of brown trout in the South Fork with no efforts to kill any of them. In fact there is a slot limit on browns with anglers only able to keep two fish over 16-inches, they don't seem to compete for habitat and spawning with the native cutthroat population.
Now, for a different direction, directed to the issue at hand, it seems to me, that with all of our rhetoric and deep-seeded philosophy and such as fly fishers, we are the true river keepers in today's world and we should do everything in our power to be good stewards. Whether the decision by a few is the right or wrong thing to do, what are we doing to preserve and protect our local waters for future generations? Lately I've become a not-so-big fan of Trout Unlimited, yet I also recognize that they accomplish a lot of tremendous good on many endangered waters. I'm sure none of us will 100% totally agree with the tenets of this or that organization, but we can support those causes that are near and dear and close to us in heart as well as proximity.
I can't say whether the decision to eliminate the brown trout in order to save the brook trout population is good or bad, but then I'm not there, with that water near and dear, thus I can't form an educated opinion. I'll strive to pay attention to my local waters and what I can do to do my part in sustaining them to be the best they can offer. Perhaps even organizations as large and powerful as Trout Unlimited should go through a "catch-and-kill" cycle (so-to-speak...), reevaluate what's important, reclaim original intents and purposes and give it another go. Who knows, a good housecleaning may do them some good as well as get them back to the grassroots of their original goals.
Just my .02 cents. But I did want to clear up the misunderstanding concerning the South Fork of the Snake River, since it is my home water.
Kelly.
Kelly,
The South Fork of the Snake is one of the most beautiful fly fishing floats that I know of. I envy you.
I think the reason for removing Rainbows and not Brown Trout is exactly what you said, the Rainbows are able to crossbreed with the Yellowstone Cutthroat, resulting in Cuttbows. As you know, this crossbreeding dilutes the unique genetics of the Yellowstone strain of Cutthroat Trout. The Brown Trout may compete but they do not crossbreed. So on the South Fork of the Snake the threat from the Rainbows adds genetic competition to species vs species competition.
I see it as analogous to the reason TU opposes farming of genetically modified Salmon, known as Frankenfish. Before they are allowed, it should be known how they will compete with wild salmon and if they can crossbreed with wild salmon.
http://calitics.com/tag/Frankenfish
"TU is deeply concerned about the risks that genetically altered salmon pose to wild salmon populations through competition or interbreeding should they escape confinement or be released into the wild," according to Trout Unlimited. "TU is also concerned that the FDA is moving through its decision-making process without adequate environmental analysis and involvement by the agencies that manage salmon fisheries, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service."
Hopefully we have learned from the bucket brigades of the past that planted fish hither and yon without regard to the consequences to the native fishery. Whether by accident or design, the planting of Yellowstone Lake with Lake Trout has devastated the what was once a great fishing experience. Removal of the Lake Trout from Yellowstone Lake is no different in my view than removing Rainbows from the Cutthroat fishery of the South Fork of the Snake or the Brown Trout from threatened Brook Trout fisheries.
No Sir, that was not my "Error".
The fact is, that many brook trout fisheries were stocked with brown trout because the brook trout were already in decline for numerous other reasons. And my point was, that the result "could be"....that a now established wild brown trout fishery, could in fact be removed....and the brook trout could very well continue to decline on a given water. For reasons that have nothing to due whatsoever with the existence, or lack of brown trout. If that happens....you will have removed a viable wild trout fishery....in pursuit of a very narrow cause.
........"Removing brown trout is the method; the goal is to allow the brookies to thrive after the removal of the browns. As I pointed out this is illogical, in that it does not include the main reason for the proposal, and it confuses the goal with the methodology. The goal is to increase the number of native brook trout, the method is removing the brown trout.".....
....."Your original argument uses circular reasoning which is a logical fallacy. Your conclusion is merely the premise restated without proof of the original premise. That is why I said the devil was illogical.".....
Confuses the goal with the methodology?...Circular reasoning which is logical fallacy?.....The prmise restated without the proof of the original premise?....C'mon now :) Really? State it however you wish. But the bottom line is, the issue being disputed is the removal of the wild brown trout fishery.....and whether or not it should take place. I don't feel that it should.....you do. I for one would sooner see a thriving wild brown trout fishery vs a brook trout fishery that is barely hanging on despite all efforts. I surely hope that if folks with your mindset get their way, that we do not see those results.
For those that are interested in how the Rainbow trout came to be the trout for every situation and how it threatens other trout species, listen to Anders Halverson's interview on Ask About Fly Fishing Internet Radio on the subject of "An Entirely Synthetic Fish".
According to Ander's only 2% of the West Slope Cutthoat are genetically pure due to cross breeding with Rainbow Trout. Listen at about 50 minutes into the podcast.
http://www.askaboutflyfishing.com/sp...hetic-fish.cfm
So let me get this straight.....is it TU's goal to get rid of Rainbow and Brown trout frm our rivers and streams? Because that's the way it is sounding here. Is it about conservation?.....or activism?
I think it is pretty clear is the answer is no unless they pose a threat of extinction to native species. When a non-native species threatens to force out by competition or by dilution of the pure species by inter breeding, then I believe we need to preserve the threatened species. These are specific instances where there is little question that the native species are becoming overcome and now occuply only a very small percentage of what was their home range.
It all depends on what is native and what is non-native. In Montana the Eastern Brook Trout is a non native species and the Montana Wildlife Fisheries and Parks Dept would prefer to have them removed. I own some property in Montana with other landowners. It has several spring ponds in which the previous owner had planted brook trout. One of the co-owners approached the MWFP, but they would not consult on how to improve the spring pond fishery because there were brook trout in them. So what is being protected as a native in the East is a non native that threatens the Cutthroat fishery in the west.
Consider the case of Grayling Michigan. It is a shame that grayling have been exterminated where grayling were once so prolific in the lakes and rivers that the town was named after them. That is what TU is trying to avoid. When native species are threatened it matters not whether the threat is another trout or a rough fish.
As a TU member, I agree with much of that philosophy. However, I don't agree with the "only native"mantra across the board. It must remain within reason and not simply be an effort too turn back time. It needs to remain conservation and stewardship, and not activism. Because in the end, water with a fishery of a non-native species, is still better than a water without a recognizable fishery. I'm not a greenpeace member....and never will be.
Again, the stream at the heart of this "controversy" was never really in decline with regard to brookies. In geologic time they have faced droughts and floods, probably fires and other environmental insults, and cyclically repopulate. There isn't much development to speak of up in the headwaters, if any. It was logged to some extent for a couple centuries but at the heart of the issue is that the now-self-sustaining brown trout hinder the brookies' ability to bounce back from periodic environmental issues that have historically not been impactful in the long term. Again, case-by-case probably trumps blanket stances by TU and other organizations like the EBTJV.
When the crusade becomes so focused on one singular issue, and reaching that goal is the only issue of value regardless of it's real world impact on anything else. That is activism. And groups willing to kill off a species in an effort to return to a "more desireable or specific time in history"...borders on it for sure IMO. There are streams out east here, that have held wild brown trout since my grandfathers granddfather fished them. No living person currently fishing them knows anything any different.....except for possibly reading a history book. Yet suddenly now, the only thing that matters is the fact that the stream once was full of brook tout. It's like discussing how the Seneca "used" to roam the farmlands I grew up in. The key word is "used to"....and nobody is going to move folks off their property so that we can return it to the seneca. At some point, it is what it is. Sounds noble.....even a bit high-brow if you must.....and makes for great backslapping and talk over cigars and merlot while discussing the higher stature of the Cutts and Brookies over "those other" trout. But that's about it in my opinion. How about if TU focuses on improving water quality....providing agricultural buffers....improving run-off and drainage issues....stream enhancements...etc. Something of value that my dues can support, instead of somebody's flag-of-choice they feel like waving.
I reckon we probably just disagree :)
Right on! Right on! NJTroutbum
TU is Not an organization for people that fish, manufacture, farm, or mine. I beleive that they see people involved in these activites as evil. Granted there may have been some situations in the past, but we can all work together. It should not be an either or situation. It is always easy to point one or two situations or problems to prove a point to your like minded followers. However we the people living within this country need to learn that we still need to get our hands dirty once in a while. What is the other choice, the US will be one large park owned by?
Back in the day - when I first joined TU, I knew they were a conservation group who fished - not a group of fishermen who do some conservation work on the side! The health and welfare of the resource comes first! THIS WAS NOT GOING TO BE ABOUT ME OR MY FISHING, but about the fish and the fishery. Take care of the fishery, and its needs, and the fishing will take take care of itself. We are all good people here and it pains me to see someone say they no longer support TU. You do realize that you are saying that you don't support me and people like me that are "on the ground" doing these stream projects! I'm a volunteer and I spend good money every year to be a volunteer! Are you saying that what I do is wrong and that the people of TU don't have any fisheries experience to make the decisions they do? Many TU folks are ex-fishery folks who are no longer encumbered by the "politics" of their former respective states and now have the full liberty to tell you the whole truth - whether you want to hear it or not!
NJTroutbum - did I miss something - when has TU not focused on stream water quality, riparian buffers, run-off issues, in-stream enhancements, bank stabilization etc. etc. etc??
Hardhat - as far as I know TU is forming cooperative groups of all the stakeholders on more projects now then ever before! That is not to say that there aren't situations where TU (me) are not going to budge, when the result would be disastrous!
TU never was intended to be a fishing club, but an organization based on the same principles as Ducks Unlimited! Habitat! Habitat! Habitat! You can stock and fish for trout in a ditch - if that's what you prefer! Trout don't want to live in ugly places - I live in an ugly place, and believe me when I tell you that there aren't any trout living in the "creeks" running through this town! There were trout "back in the day". Sure, Anthracite coal helped build a nation - NOW WHAT??
Best regards, Dave S.
......."NJTroutbum - did I miss something - when has TU not focused on stream water quality, riparian buffers, run-off issues, in-stream enhancements, bank stabilization etc. etc. etc??"......
Fishdog54,
Never said they weren't. What I said was, they should focus more on those issues in my opinion,then working towards removing a trout species from a given water. There are countles waters that need help, more than a handfull of folks golden ambitions of a "native only" focus.
But that's just my opinion. I'm a member myself....and will remain a member. But I don't feel the need to follow suit with that line of thinking. NOr do I appreciate being told that as a sportsman I will follow the "'wrong" path, while the elite of the organinzation "know better". I find that to be insulting at the very least.