Originally Posted by Corbo
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.