PDA

View Full Version : Poison in park waters


Corbo
01-11-2011, 05:47 AM
Boy am I confused after reading EVERY POST on the "killing rainbows" thread!

As a recent "transplant" from Maine who is very familiar with BONAFIED Native "genetically pure" brook trout restoration I think that POISONING waters to "restore" tyhem on behalf of brook trout (that would need to be stocked) is TOTALLY ABSURD.

IF THE INTENDED DESIRE IS INDEED RESTORING A SPECIFIC FISH TO IT'S NATIVE WATERS WITHOUT COMPETITION FROM "INTRODUCED NON-NATIVES" I BELEIVE THE ENTIRE EFFORT IS FOOLISH.

Maine was blessed when large scale genetic testing of brook trout revealed that many brook trout waters had never been polluted with hatchery fish or transplanted fish. There are more than 100 up-country ponds that have genetically "pure" fish.

What is most interesting may surprise you all.... fish from different waters... sometimes only a few hundred yards apart had different genetics! The ice age essentially stranded fish into different waters and over time each water had GENETICALLY DISTINCT attributes. (coloration, growth potential, longevity etc. etc.)

Several years ago Paul Guernsey and me visted a bunch of "genetically pure brookie ponds" that had been aquired by the App. Mtn. Club; the article in FF& reel told the story about how all the ponds in this reserve were " genetically pure unto themselves" and after fishing the ponds we could see the differences in the fish.

The brookies definitely varied in physical appearance from one PURE POND to the next and all were like sparkling jewels with no fish over 10 inches caught through the week.

Maine has "reclaimed" many ponds over the years; at first they would rotenone and then stock with hatchery brookies. Later they grew a brain and started to re-habitate to some extent with brookies that came from sources where no stocking had ever influenced original genetics.

I don't know the extent that National TU, the Little River Chapter or any of the Federal experts from the Dept of Interior or Commerce have "studied & tested" the genetics of the Park brookies.... I would bet that brookies from different basins would show that they are genetically different.

I applaud all of your for your tremendous efforts to restore brook trout habitat in the park as well as efforts to restore the "range" of the brookies without competition from non-natives BUT ask you all, "what is a non-native"?

In our world of science & technology it has become commonplace to accept the notion that JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DO SOMETHING MEANS YOU SHOULD DO SOMETHING.

IMO it is far better to protect something from destruction than destroying everything in order to re-establish something of dubious integrity.

Killing rainbows, browns and every other living thing in small mountain streams in a speculative (pun) endeavor to increase brook trout range without regard to the genetics of each individual stream is poor science.

It would be far more noble to protect genetically pure native brookies in the park where they have not been disturbed by non-native or non-genetically distinct brookies by closing these waters to fishing or creeling.

"Restoration" with chemicals is totally irresponsible.... with all critters in the stream affected you are messing with more than the fish.... you might be killing genetically distinct species from bugs to salamanders to whatever and I find the entire notion selfish.

You may now beat me with a stick... but you've already killed the genetically distinct brookies you wanted to protect.

mcfly
01-11-2011, 12:28 PM
As a recent "transplant" from Maine who is very familiar with BONAFIED Native "genetically pure" brook trout restoration

What is most interesting may surprise you all.... fish from different waters... sometimes only a few hundred yards apart had different genetics!

Maine has "reclaimed" many ponds over the years; at first they would rotenone and then stock with hatchery brookies. Later they grew a brain and started to re-habitate to some extent with brookies that came from sources where no stocking had ever influenced original genetics.

I don't know the extent that National TU, the Little River Chapter or any of the Federal experts from the Dept of Interior or Commerce have "studied & tested" the genetics of the Park brookies.... I would bet that brookies from different basins would show that they are genetically different.

Killing rainbows, browns and every other living thing in small mountain streams

It would be far more noble to protect genetically pure native brookies in the park where they have not been disturbed by non-native or non-genetically distinct brookies by closing these waters to fishing or creeling.

"Restoration" with chemicals is totally irresponsible.... with all critters in the stream affected you are messing with more than the fish.... you might be killing genetically distinct species from bugs to salamanders to whatever and I find the entire notion selfish.

but you've already killed the genetically distinct brookies you wanted to protect.

2 Suggestions:

1) The comments above show some ignorance. Do more research.
2) Do all of your fishing in Maine.

Grannyknot
01-11-2011, 01:46 PM
You seem like a pretty intelligent person to me, so I would suggest some reading on Allopatric vs. Sympatric speciation and how they pertain to Northern strains (plural) vs. the southern strain.

jeffnles1
01-11-2011, 02:00 PM
While I seriously doubt the long term success of many of these measures and to think a lot of other things were indeed killed that make a stream such an interesting eco system, I've not been made award of significance of genetic differences in the southern strain of brookies that live in park waters. There well may be genetic differences from stream to stream, but that hasn't been discussed.

If the poision killed off all the fish, I'm assuming it killed off crayfish, salamanders, aquatic incets and other native fish that lived in the stream and it wasn't selective to just rainbow and brown trout.

The biggest concern I had over the entire thing is killing off everything in the stream.

However, I do believe the fisheries biologists know a whole lot more about it than I do. I wouldn't expect them to tell me a lot about implementing computer systems in a Fortune 500 company and I wouldn't want to be telling them how to do their jobs.

Jeff

pineman19
01-11-2011, 02:12 PM
Jeff,

Not sure about genetic differences, but they have noticed some differences in the different watersheds of the Park. That's why they used specs from the Upper Little River watershed to stock Sam's Creek. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that they used fish from Sam's Creek to stock Lynn Camp. I would say the the specs in Sam's Creek look different than the specs I have caught in the Greenbriar system.

Neal

Knothead
01-11-2011, 05:19 PM
There are slight genetic differences in the Appalachian strain of brook trout. Differences are detected in different watersheds in the southeast. I guess we could call them sub-species. As to poisoning, I watched Kentucky wildlife officers put rotenone in a small farm pond owned by a friend. It was overrun with very small bluegill. The fish came to the top and were netted. One was a huge crappie, the only one in the pond. I don't recall seeing any other kinds of aquatic life being affected. After a certain time period (don't recall what), the pond was restocked.

Corbo
01-11-2011, 05:29 PM
Has anyone ACTUALLY compared the genetics of brookies from the Upper Greenbriar with the Upper Little or perhaps the creeks that feed Abrams? Or do you assume that each watershed has similar genetics because it is convenient or expedient.

"Conserve, protect and restore" are in this order for a reason. Restoring something that wasn't conserved is not possible.

They might all be stockers anyway?

Personally I think brook trout are very pretty but I prefer to fish for browns; mostly in tailwaters... boulder strewn mountain creeks with a lot of over hanging trees & moochie brook trout are for younger guys that have the legs to get there safely.

GrouseMan77
01-11-2011, 06:17 PM
"Restoration" with chemicals is totally irresponsible.... with all critters in the stream affected you are messing with more than the fish.... you might be killing genetically distinct species from bugs to salamanders to whatever and I find the entire notion selfish.

You may now beat me with a stick... but you've already killed the genetically distinct brookies you wanted to protect.

This article contains information on the chemical (antimycin) that was used to treat the waters: http://www.newmexicotu.org/Antimycin%20Summary.pdf (http://www.newmexicotu.org/Antimycin%20Summary.pdf). I did not take the time to highlight specific information in the article.

By the way, the treated streams were shocked and fish were collected prior to the streams being treated. So very few of the brookies were killed. I'm sure that either Steve Moore or Matt Kulp (GSMNP fisheries) would be glad to answer any further questions that you might have. I can dig around for their email addresses or telephone numbers if you'd like.

2weightfavorite
01-11-2011, 10:05 PM
the topic will always be a sore one to bring up... Wasting money to kill fish to bring in different fish... I used to love to fish that stream, now Ill have to wait who knows how long to fish it again. but mark my words, when I do get to fish it again I would bet my bottom dollar that I stilll catch a few bows...

NDuncan
01-12-2011, 10:30 AM
Has anyone ACTUALLY compared the genetics of brookies from the Upper Greenbriar with the Upper Little or perhaps the creeks that feed Abrams? Or do you assume that each watershed has similar genetics because it is convenient or expedient.

"Conserve, protect and restore" are in this order for a reason. Restoring something that wasn't conserved is not possible.

They might all be stockers anyway?

Personally I think brook trout are very pretty but I prefer to fish for browns; mostly in tailwaters... boulder strewn mountain creeks with a lot of over hanging trees & moochie brook trout are for younger guys that have the legs to get there safely.

Just to clear up some of your assumptions:

As a scientist with access to a large number of scientific journals, I can tell you definitively that the genetics of specks across MANY, MANY watersheds in the park have been studied, documented, and published over the past 30-40 years. Based on your original comments, that may come as a surprise to you, that we down in the south would also be 'blessed' with such scientific research of that extent and quality like they do up north.

What might all be stockers anyway? Are you now making the leap from 'restoring specks is irresponsible' (which may be arguable, but probably better approached in more reasonable fashion that calling everyone a bunch of idiots) to 'all the specks in the park might be stockers anyway'?

My main is issue with you is not the questions you pose, but the way you pose them. You are jumping to conclusions about various aspects of the program that based totally on your own assumptions and not in any way shape or form the reality of the situation. The advice given by others to do some research is a good one- especially if you plan on announcing your point of view from such a high horse.

narcodog
01-12-2011, 10:59 AM
Some good advise here and here is my assessment of you, your an A$$.:mad::p

ChemEAngler
01-12-2011, 02:01 PM
Hey guys, could it be that we are getting a little bit hostile here with a relatively new guy to the forum? Let's try to chill out a little. Maybe his research was lacking in some areas, it should be our place to point him in the correct direction or enlighten him. So, let's try to show him a little southern courtesy.

Like 2weight said, this is a very touchy issue around here. Personally I supported it on this one watershed as a test measure. Had it been discussed doing it on multiple streams, I would have been on the other side of the fence. It appears that a couple of bucket biologists took it upon themselves to restore the rainbows and undermine the entire effort, I think other variables such as this should be considered before another attempt is made.

Corbo,
Here is part of the enlightening portion:
As somebody who does a lot of travelling for work, especially to the northeast, not much fires up a southern "fella" more than an outsider sticking his nose into something in a not so polite fashion. There is a definite language and personality barrier between southerners and northerners, that should be taken into respect when posting on a southern based forum. There has never been a shortage, nor will there ever be, of people who think that just because we live in the south we are uneducated and don't have the resources that "big city folk" do. That couldn't be farther from the truth, just look at the research triangle NC, Oak Ridge National Lab, Savannah River National Lab, and that doesn't include some of the top ranked universities in the country. You may not have been saying that, but your post came across as such. My advice to you is that we all must adapt our tact when venturing outside of our home environment.

If you are really interested in having an educational discussion regarding this topic, then let's do so. Myself and others would most likely learn from such discussion. However, if this was intended to be a post more representative of a troll, then I ask that we let this die and focus more on our respective areas of interest.

Best Regards,
Travis

NDuncan
01-12-2011, 02:19 PM
To be fair... he did say we could beat him with a stick....:biggrin:

In all seriousness, Travis is right about keeping it a more civil exchange of ideas, data, and viewpoints, and I apologize if my over-defensiveness kicked in there in my interpretation of the tone of the original posts.

narcodog
01-12-2011, 03:27 PM
Although I am new to this forum I have fished the Park and the south for many years. I support the Parks studies and efforts to restore the Brookies to their natural surroundings. We "man" destroyed the land the Park now sets on and though I don't agree with all of the Parks policies I still support their efforts.
An individual that has very little knowledge of the area that he is condemning should be fully versed before any type of criticism is leveled against the Park or the South in general.
I think this individual is just trying to stir the pot.

Corbo
01-12-2011, 07:11 PM
Whoa

First off I live in Seymour, I grew up in NC then Southern Jersey and moved to Maine after college and then after 25 years living among the liberal elite in the most taxed and oppressive place in our country I move here (one of the best places).


Here and up in Maine I applaud efforts to "re-establish fish lost due to the effects of mankind.... MY personal environmental effort & record with Conservation groups like Tu is tough to match.... but who cares? I retired now from enviro stuff and I never liked hanging out enviros as I'm an extremely conservative conservationist.

I didn't move south to tell folks what to think or believe or cherish..... I moved here because I share the same moral and societal values most southerners accept as normal behavior but are lost in the Northeastern liberal states.

MY POINT was that killing everything in a stream also kills the genetics of the remaining stock of ORIGINAL BROOK TROUT.... a genetically pure native brook trout can not be replaced with same.

My second point is that replacing a good fishery with a marginal fishery in a place that didn't have any pure genetically original fish may not be a good idea when you are killing all the other lifeforms in the stream.

After all this work.... what has been gained? Many folks say that closing all these streams for years never increased the population of brook trout.... so a fishery was lost for many years based on conjecture now that time has passed and the studies are finished or continuing.

Many times when a fishery is closed people lose interest in it all together.... while it's nice to have "marginally good" water totally set aside for brook trout it may never be a very good fishery or as good as one with non-natives.

There is a big difference between a native brook trout and an imported brook trout and some waters will never support either very well due to the lasting effects of pollution, forestry, erosion pH etc.... NO MATTER HOW BADLY YOU WANT.

If I saw a guy with a bucket next to a smokey mountain stream he would be detained against his will at the very least.

Not trying to stir the pot; only questioning the science... that's all. No offense intended so please try not to take any.

buzzmcmanus
01-12-2011, 09:30 PM
..................

mcfly
01-12-2011, 11:55 PM
MY POINT was that killing everything in a stream also kills the genetics of the remaining stock of ORIGINAL BROOK TROUT.... a genetically pure native brook trout can not be replaced with same.

My second point is that replacing a good fishery with a marginal fishery in a place that didn't have any pure genetically original fish may not be a good idea when you are killing all the other lifeforms in the stream.


There is a big difference between a native brook trout and an imported brook trout and some waters will never support either

Not trying to stir the pot; only questioning the science... .

When I say you are ignorant, it is not meant as an insult, but the comments above clearly show that you do not know very much about the process or the "science'' of what the fisheries folks in the park are doing, so you should really look more into it before "questioning the science".

The fact is that the Park fisheries biologists are top notch, if not some of the best in the world, and their work has been applauded many times over. I wont' argue with you or go into the "science", but their process doesn't approach total stream kill whatsoever. Also, the genetics have been studied and are pure.

Corbo
01-13-2011, 01:29 AM
After reviewing my posts on this subject I see that I have made no reference whatsoever about "the south" or "southerners".... nor did I claim that northerners were more experienced in these matters of restoration.

I also said in my OP that I applaud the efforts to restore brook trout.

I did not say that anyone in particular, group or the park scientists/biologist were not knowledgable or claim they were incompetent.

And I might mention that I do have much knowledge in these matters.

In a perfect world I respect the integrity of God's genetic make-up in a stream over mans. It would be awesome if native brook trout waters were not poluted with rainbows, browns or brookies with poluted heritage.

While it is true I don't have the knowledge that you guys enjoy on these waters I still think it a shame to poison fish in waters that may be marginally restorable for native genetically pure brookies.

This effort to restore brook trout was substantial, costly, well intentioned and had lots of volunteer activists and I'm grateful to all of you who helped out. Brook trout are hands down the most beautiful fish between Georgia and Maine; unfortunately they are the most vulnerable to degraded habitat, acid rain/pH, deforestation and warm water. I'm personally not a big supporter of dumping more poison into mostly pristine watersheds.

DDT is a wonderful substance; it virtually cured the worldwide problem of bed bugs half a century ago, it eliminated insects that kill precious stands of softwoods and hard woods from the south through new england, it wiped out mosquitos in countries with extremely dangerous pests like mosquitos/malaria etc. More of it was sprayed in Maine per square mile than anywhere else on the planet and folks there wonder why ME has the highest cancer rate in the nation.

Science is most often well intentioned... look at all the TV commercials from lawyers looking to cash in on all the "bad" drugs that we now know are harmful... Well I have taken four of them all recalled in the last several years.... fortunately none of them killed me. As I type a pump is mainlining an extremely potent antibiotic into the top of my heart and while it might prevent me from losing my right foot from an infection caused by a lousy surgeon a year ago... I worry about what side effects it may cause me now or later.... I'm trusting my doctors but just like the poisons dumped into rivers you just never really know what the long term side effects may be today.

I meant to offend nobody; especially not a Southerner... I may have lived among the yankees for a long time but I'm certainly not a ****ed Yankee; fact is I'm a right-winged anarchist who would seriously enjoy fighting for the rights of southern states against the evil Northern Federalists who have railroad the well valued people of the South for 100 years I moved here to fight with you... not against you.... for both good fishing and everything else you folks treasure and value.

Chill out; I am not the enemy.... questioning the use of poison in a river doesn't make me a bad person even when THE GOVERNMENT tells you it is safe... The FDA is wrong all the time..

rivergal
01-13-2011, 09:57 AM
Sounds like the Civil War 150th anniversary is heating up !
My Tennessee kin were Union. 3rd Tennessee cavalry.
Some Tennessee families had kin on both sides causing divided loyalties.

duckypaddler
01-13-2011, 12:16 PM
Whoa

First off I live in Seymour, I grew up in NC then Southern Jersey and moved to Maine after college.

I also lived a few years in South Jersey as a kid and a large part of my family on my fathers side are from Maine. So welcome to this fourm. If your not a troll, then please use some more disgretion in the future.

MY POINT was that killing everything in a stream also kills the genetics of the remaining stock of ORIGINAL BROOK TROUT.... a genetically pure native brook trout can not be replaced with same.

Here is where your ignorance is showing. You really should get more educated before reaching such drastic conclusions (man of science right?). Fish were shocked, and native brookies weren't killed (well except from some smart bears that got some). And to respond to earlier comment about genetics, yes they are studied (Kenny a graduate student working for the park from Kansas seems to know more than I could comprehend), and while park Brookies do have some genetic differences, it hasn't caused any major problems. All brookies were chosen by simillar streams at similar elevations and all were true genetic Souther App Brook trout

My second point is that replacing a good fishery with a marginal fishery in a place that didn't have any pure genetically original fish may not be a good idea when you are killing all the other lifeforms in the stream.

Ok then what is your answer for Sam's creek? Even Casada bows down on this one. You really need to understand "poisons" are different. Your prior comparisons to DDT and Rotenone are silly. As far as killing a good fishery. Are you really saying there aren't plenty of Rainbow streams in the Smokies? And since you only like Browns on tailwaters why do you even care?

After all this work.... what has been gained? Many folks say that closing all these streams for years never increased the population of brook trout.... so a fishery was lost for many years based on conjecture now that time has passed and the studies are finished or continuing.

The stream will only be closed a short time. The populations are doing great. You really need the facts, many of which are easily obtained on the park's website. A great, easily accessable Brookie stream should be gained soon enough

There is a big difference between a native brook trout and an imported brook trout and some waters will never support either very well due to the lasting effects of pollution, forestry, erosion pH etc.... NO MATTER HOW BADLY YOU WANT. You are acting like they stocked non-natives or something.

And yes while "some waters" won't support either - Lynn Camp is a dream come true - so again - get the facts

Not trying to stir the pot; Ooh come on ...... really? only questioning the science.(feel free to do that. If you have a real and not perceived in your head from ignorance about the restoration)

Ooh and your argument for stopping fishing or creeling limits on Brookies was studied, and fishing was found to have little to no effect, hence the opening of all streams.

Crockett
01-13-2011, 01:32 PM
Corbo I think the confusion stems from the fact that not many folks in Seymour list their location as Rome, Maine. Maybe you are so new to the area you just haven't had time to change the location yet in your profile. Also to put it bluntly East TN along with much of the South has changed a lot over the last couple of decades. We are overrun with Northerners who come down here because we have lower taxes and more freedom. Yet despite the fact that we seem to be doing things right, which is the reason they come down here in the first place, they almost always seem to think they know better and things were done better up north.

Just my opinion no disrespect to you personally I am sure if we met out on the water we would get along fine. Seriously we should go fishing sometime. I used to live in Seymour so we have that in common. My ancestors all fought for the Union yet lived in Hawkins County (East TN). East TN was a very strong Union area. Middle and West were the rebs. You can still see that delineation today in that East TN is strong Republican whereas Middle and West is Democrat.

jeffnles1
01-13-2011, 03:16 PM
Guys,
In reading through these posts again, I don't think the guy meant any insult on us Southerners.

Like many of us did when this was being discussed a year or two ago, he questioned the logic of using a poision to kill all fish (and most probably other much other life as well) in a healthy stream to restock the natives. Yes, in this case, the fish stocked are not imports but fish captured from adjoining streams in the same watershed. While they may not be an exact match for the minute genetic differences they are, I'm sure, pretty darn close.

My question then and now is what else was killed in Lynn Camp Prong in order to reintroduce the brook trout and was it worth it?

I don't claim to have the answers, just questions. Time will eventually tell the story.

Nowever, I really didn't think the original poster was trying to slam southerners.

Jeff

NDuncan
01-13-2011, 05:22 PM
Here's an interesting breakdown about the genetics of particular strains of specks in some of the streams of the park...(If i get too technical, I apologize)

Not surprisingly, the Sam's Creek and Starkey Creek are the same pure southern strain. There are two distinct Southern strain populations in Silers creek (I guess two extended families cohabitate in this stream, but want very little to do with each other breeding wise) And a stream geographically located between these two, Meigs creek- has a pure strain in it as well, however these are a Northern strain, and the one stream in the park that was surveyed in this particular study that didn't have any southern strain specks detected in the waters.

All of the NC park streams surveyed that had northern strain specks hybridized with one or more population of southern specks in varying degrees of hybridization. What was interesting, is the correlation between the time passed since the last recorded stocking, and degree of genetic hybridization. The streams that had most recently been stocked with Northern Strain specks showed the highest degree of northern genes in the hybrids. The ones that have had several more generations of reproductions since the last stocking, have the least degree of northern genes in the hybrids, suggesting that the native southern genes are better adapted to the climate and that there is some degree of genetic preference against the northern genes and their hybrids, so that over time, the hybrids are becoming more like the native genetically. It doesn't appear that amount of stocking has any correlation to the degree of hybridization.

The one very weird standout that doesn't fit with any of the studies hypotheses is Beech Flats prong. While it was one the most heavily stocked streams of the ones surveyed and one of the more recently stocked streams that were surveyed, it has the lowest genetic proportion of the marker used to differentiate the two strains and no northern strain mitochondrial dna (DNA that is only passed maternally, and is used to trace the maternal lineage of the fish, thus identify which northern strain it is hybridized with as well differentiate between distinct populations of fish). So why the native specks didn't hybridize with the stockers in this stream as much as any of the others, despite a very high opportunity to do so is kind of a mystery. There are three distinct southern populations in this stream as well. Maybe these families are more or less closed societies who apparently can out breed and out compete the stockers and want very little to do with breeding with them.

All in all, the study found 12 genetic populations of southern specks, and 4 genetic populations of northern specks (As well as the hybrids of these)

Corbo
01-13-2011, 07:36 PM
I spose that an explanation of what happened many years ago in Maine is in order.

Unfortunately many ponds and streams going to and from were polluted by the "bucket brigade" that introduced small mouthed bass and sunfish to their favorite native genetically pure never stocked pond "to enhance their fishing opportunity.

The State responded by using rotenone to kill the entire pond of all fish; sometimes multiple applications THEN they re-stocked with hatchery brookies. Over time they found these hatchery fish were poorly suited and did poorly.

The State's next response was to isolate pure brookies in another pond and propagate them in a hatchery for use in "re-claimed" ponds... The results were mixed.

Years went bye and the biologists with financial grants from TU "bring back the natives program" funded with the Cold water conservation fund started looking at genetics on a pond by pond basis... the studies were interesting because there were often HUGE genetic differences in populations of pure original fish in waters that were very close to one another.

Consideration was then given to the water bodies.... Most people then speculated that original pure stocks had ADAPTED to their particular watershed and that is why they often did not do well when used to re-polutate a water body that had been re-claimed.

This is why I cherish the genetic of the fish that inhabit a very particular piece of river, stream or pond.

I am aware that studies here have shown no huge increase in the number of brookies in several places even after the fishing was closed for many years. When I suggested a water be closed to protect a genetically unique brook trout it would be when few of these gems remained.

What happened in Maine was a long learning curve marked by years of trial & error and good intentions. After considering what had been poisoned into extinction fisheries personel became more careful when they applied poison.

I learned to fish and love rivers as a boy on the NEW RIVER in North Carolina; I moved to Maine 25 years ago because there was great trout fishing and left because it's just too ****ed liberal for me.

We didn't move here to change anything but to celebrate the fact that our personal values totally reflect those of the people here in East TN.

I'd be honored to fish with any of you but I'm physically incapable of fishing hike in streams or places full of huge boulders due to a serious foot injury 20 years ago.

Fact is I have osteomylitus in my right foot thanks to an ARROGANT MAINE doctor who repaired it last December. This december a very nice and extremely talented TN doctor save it.... I have an enormous hole in my foot and I'm attached to a 24/7 antibiotic until mid-march and even then I may still lose the ****ed foot.

The ONLY reason I'm trying to save it is so I can wade fish.

Just a thought on "fisheries management"..... might it be prudent to make it a law that all rainbows and browns in certain waters be creeled upon catch?

Grannyknot
01-13-2011, 10:32 PM
Well, thanks for your opinions and insight, but it's probably useless to talk about it any further, as whats done is done, and probably will never be done again considering the debacle they encountered during sampling last year. Apparently a few other people share your opinions.

All I know is, when they open it to fishing, they better plan on making a parking lot out of wilkinson ridge, because an already crowded parking area is going to get a lot worse.

Corbo
01-14-2011, 12:01 AM
Just to clear up some of your assumptions:

As a scientist with access to a large number of scientific journals, I can tell you definitively that the genetics of specks across MANY, MANY watersheds in the park have been studied, documented, and published over the past 30-40 years. Based on your original comments, that may come as a surprise to you, that we down in the south would also be 'blessed' with such scientific research of that extent and quality like they do up north.

What might all be stockers anyway? Are you now making the leap from 'restoring specks is irresponsible' (which may be arguable, but probably better approached in more reasonable fashion that calling everyone a bunch of idiots) to 'all the specks in the park might be stockers anyway'?

My main is issue with you is not the questions you pose, but the way you pose them. You are jumping to conclusions about various aspects of the program that based totally on your own assumptions and not in any way shape or form the reality of the situation. The advice given by others to do some research is a good one- especially if you plan on announcing your point of view from such a high horse.


Nduncan: For the record I called nobody an "idiot" & if you read my post of how "restoring brook trout waters in Maine" transpired you would understand that I'm not riding a high horse.... Maine did things wrong for years before getting anything right.

So let me disrespect Mainers and tell you they are about the most selfish & inconsderate, worthless & lazy, disrespectful and poorly valued B-tards on the planet and the fisheries people totally inept. I have nothing but comtempt for New Englanders which I am not. Oh and the fishing sucks now do to poor management.

Thanks all for an interesting discussion

duckypaddler
01-14-2011, 09:05 AM
So let me disrespect Mainers and tell you they are about the most selfish & inconsderate, worthless & lazy, disrespectful and poorly valued B-tards on the planet and the fisheries people totally inept. I have nothing but comtempt for New Englanders which I am not. Oh and the fishing sucks now do to poor management.

Thanks all for an interesting discussion

First you start off with an ignorant rant about fishing and then somehow turn it into horrible rant about New Englanders:frown: I now totally agree with the earlier poster and let me say: YOU'RE A REAL ***! You seem to be full of anger and hate and seem to displace your emotions and make you draw irrational conclusions. Just because something gets screwed up in Maine (which has tons of GREAT fishing), has absolutely nothing to do with the restoration effort here.

I have always found the people in rural Maine to have similar values as East TN. And while I have done my best on this board to keep an open mind, and to honestly try to hear what others are saying (especially when they disagree with me), but with you sir I am done. Every time someone politely tries to educate you, you just turn your anger in a new direction.:eek:

Whether your a bitter old man or a troll, you don't need to posting on this board, and I hope Paula will pull your RANTS as they seem less than fishing related.

On the other hand, I am really impressed by my fellow board members, which try again, again, and again to help this fool:biggrin:.

tennswede
01-14-2011, 09:45 AM
Duckypaddler,

Amen to that, thanks for showing some civility and class. No wonder this world is the way it is. I am so tired of this. I hear it all the times as an immigrant. I'm an american citizen but I still feel the crudeness from certain individuals. I'm not a victim but I'm tired of uneducated generalizations and accusations. If you are a Swede, Finn, Greek or an Alien from Mars, it doesn't matter, you can never safely assume that one ethnic group or people act as a homogenouos group. Not all Swedes are the same, not all Tennesseans are the same. Why is this so hard for some people to grasp? Also, for your information and all others out there that only think they are right and their political views are the only ones that matter. The other side think your views are as wacky as anyone's. It's just politics, it won't have all the answers and it will not solve all problems. This family values thing is another oxymoron. My family values might be complete opposite of yours. Why are mine wrong and yours right? Enough of this, this is a fishing forum and used to be the best. It is now deteriorating in to a mudslinging political rant and I know that I don 't come here to read about someone thinkging they are right and everyone else is wrong. Why can't we leave this to the proper boards?

NDuncan
01-14-2011, 11:44 AM
Nduncan: For the record I called nobody an "idiot" & if you read my post of how "restoring brook trout waters in Maine" transpired you would understand that I'm not riding a high horse.... Maine did things wrong for years before getting anything right.

So let me disrespect Mainers and tell you they are about the most selfish & inconsderate, worthless & lazy, disrespectful and poorly valued B-tards on the planet and the fisheries people totally inept. I have nothing but comtempt for New Englanders which I am not. Oh and the fishing sucks now do to poor management.

Thanks all for an interesting discussion

If you had read my post that followed that, I apologized for being over-defensive based on my perception of your tone in your original posts. And since then, I moved on, haven't brought up anything about the whole stupid 'northerners vs southerners' argument to salvage the point of this thread, which I thought was a discussion of the methods, precautions, research, etc that was done in the parks restoration program. I keep trying to turn the subject back to your original questions, I provided data about the studies that were done on the genetics of the park's trout. I don't know why, if you truly want to discuss this, you keep trying to take the conversation back to this initial side-tracked waste of time geographical argument.

So if you still don't see my other post, I apologize for jumping to conclusions regarding the tone your posts.

I hope your foot gets better.

Streamhound
01-14-2011, 12:40 PM
NDuncan
Just a spectator but I enjoyed your data on the genetics of the trout in the park.

The Principal
01-14-2011, 04:43 PM
I agree with Hans.

pineman19
01-14-2011, 08:25 PM
Any chance this thread can die! Winter is tough enough without this kinda crap:rolleyes:

Neal

Crockett
01-14-2011, 10:37 PM
Any chance this thread can die! Winter is tough enough without this kinda crap:rolleyes:

Neal

Wait I want to say one last thing about yankees... (just kidding Neal)

pineman19
01-14-2011, 11:04 PM
It's okay, I am a Halfback, have heard plenty over the last 12 years and gave a little back myself:biggrin:

GrouseMan77
01-14-2011, 11:13 PM
Wait I want to say one last thing about yankees... (just kidding Neal)

Wait a minute! All this time I thought that Luttrell was in the south?

pineman19
01-14-2011, 11:15 PM
Luttrell is it's own country, actually I live closer to Maynardville, which is another country in its self:rolleyes:

GrouseMan77
01-14-2011, 11:26 PM
Luttrell is it's own country, actually I live closer to Maynardville, which is another country in its self:rolleyes:

My parents live in Big Ridge which makes Maynardville look like New York City.

WVBrookie
01-15-2011, 06:55 PM
NDuncan
Just a spectator but I enjoyed your data on the genetics of the trout in the park.

That's a BIG ditto!! Thank you!

To keep things in perspective (one stream) and possibly stir the pot a bit more ;), take a look at what Yellowstone is planning.

Native Fish Conservation Plan (http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=111&projectID=30504&documentID=37967)

...and as my signature might suggest, I'm all for it!

For those that just want to see this thread fade away, I apologize.

Chris