05-26-2010, 07:33 AM
Hi Chris,
Thank you for the prompt reply. As for me, all my comments are my own opinions based on a cursory review of the scientific literature.
My point is simply that removing one "bad" non-native fish (Pike) to replace it with another "bad" non-native fish (Trout/Bass) is simply based on angler preference NOT biology. Also, I'm not trying to ban stocking...just to promote a little thinking.
As Chris responded to my post with terms like "lies" etc, no doubt meant for posts other than my own, I feel obligated to add a few links to back up my statements.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campa...ocking.pdf
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campa...lamath.pdf
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journ...6/abstract
http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~brett/la...heries.pdf
In the above, read this paragraph published in the American Fisheries Society:
"1. Do as we say, not as we do.
Unauthorized stocking may be partly a legacy of our profession’s promiscuous fish stocking past (Li and Moyle 1999) and our present conduct. Many popular recreational fisheries in North America and elsewhere are directed at introduced fishes, some sustained by authorized stocking. Agency transfers of fishes outside their native range and mixing of locally adapted genetic stocks continue today in spite of growing evidence that these practices can have detrimental ecological and genetic impacts (Cross 2000; Goldberg et al. 2005). Agencies continue to promote fish culture and stocking (e.g., hatchery tours, stocking tallies in the media) because it is an expedient way to demonstrate apparent benefits flowing from the license dollar. However, in doing so, we may have instilled the notion among anglers that fisheries can be created or remedied just by stocking fish (Meffe 1992; Arlinghaus and Mehner 2005; Arlinghaus 2006). Cooperative agency-angling club fish rearing and stocking programs further reinforce this perspective and break down the traditional barrier that rested stocking authority in the hands of agencies alone. As professionals, we should recognize that we may have contributed to the problem by unintentionally indoctrinating anglers with potentially unrealistic and ecologically unsustainable attitudes
about stocking (Arlinghaus and Mehner 2005)."
Have you heard of the Tragedy of the Commons? Simply put: if a resource is owned by everyone, it usually gets abused. In the case of fishing, everyone believes they are entitled to their limit of species X in Lake Y. But what if WE (you and I) managed Comins Lake, or any other lake? Would you object if someone was fishing out 'your' lake? Attached is a paper on an alternative means of managing a 'state' fishery that has been operating since 1978 for thousands of lakes.
One might say there are many ways to skin a fish... Just because it has "always" (< 150 yrs) been done a certain way, doesn't make it the 'right' or even the 'best' way.
Lastly, I'm not trying to beat up on Chris here...as a public servant, he must follow NDOW directives and NRS statutes. Remove the Pike if you must, just know that trout are just as non-native, predatory, and damaging to ecosystems...they do generate more $$$ though...which is almost always the bottom line.
[signature]
Thank you for the prompt reply. As for me, all my comments are my own opinions based on a cursory review of the scientific literature.
My point is simply that removing one "bad" non-native fish (Pike) to replace it with another "bad" non-native fish (Trout/Bass) is simply based on angler preference NOT biology. Also, I'm not trying to ban stocking...just to promote a little thinking.
As Chris responded to my post with terms like "lies" etc, no doubt meant for posts other than my own, I feel obligated to add a few links to back up my statements.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campa...ocking.pdf
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campa...lamath.pdf
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journ...6/abstract
http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~brett/la...heries.pdf
In the above, read this paragraph published in the American Fisheries Society:
"1. Do as we say, not as we do.
Unauthorized stocking may be partly a legacy of our profession’s promiscuous fish stocking past (Li and Moyle 1999) and our present conduct. Many popular recreational fisheries in North America and elsewhere are directed at introduced fishes, some sustained by authorized stocking. Agency transfers of fishes outside their native range and mixing of locally adapted genetic stocks continue today in spite of growing evidence that these practices can have detrimental ecological and genetic impacts (Cross 2000; Goldberg et al. 2005). Agencies continue to promote fish culture and stocking (e.g., hatchery tours, stocking tallies in the media) because it is an expedient way to demonstrate apparent benefits flowing from the license dollar. However, in doing so, we may have instilled the notion among anglers that fisheries can be created or remedied just by stocking fish (Meffe 1992; Arlinghaus and Mehner 2005; Arlinghaus 2006). Cooperative agency-angling club fish rearing and stocking programs further reinforce this perspective and break down the traditional barrier that rested stocking authority in the hands of agencies alone. As professionals, we should recognize that we may have contributed to the problem by unintentionally indoctrinating anglers with potentially unrealistic and ecologically unsustainable attitudes
about stocking (Arlinghaus and Mehner 2005)."
Have you heard of the Tragedy of the Commons? Simply put: if a resource is owned by everyone, it usually gets abused. In the case of fishing, everyone believes they are entitled to their limit of species X in Lake Y. But what if WE (you and I) managed Comins Lake, or any other lake? Would you object if someone was fishing out 'your' lake? Attached is a paper on an alternative means of managing a 'state' fishery that has been operating since 1978 for thousands of lakes.
One might say there are many ways to skin a fish... Just because it has "always" (< 150 yrs) been done a certain way, doesn't make it the 'right' or even the 'best' way.
Lastly, I'm not trying to beat up on Chris here...as a public servant, he must follow NDOW directives and NRS statutes. Remove the Pike if you must, just know that trout are just as non-native, predatory, and damaging to ecosystems...they do generate more $$$ though...which is almost always the bottom line.
[signature]