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 is 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?
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 is 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?
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 that Rainbows crossbreed with the Yellowstone Cutthroat, resulting in Cuttbows. This crossbreeding dilutes the unique genetics of the Yellowstone strain of Cutthroat Trout. The Brown Trout 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 devasted 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 Cuttroat fishery of the South Fork of the Snake or the Brown Trout from threatened Brook Trout fisheries.
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 [b]circular reasoning[/b] 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/speakers/anders-halverson/an-entirely-synthetic-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.
Can you define the difference between Conservation and Activism for me.
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