Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > The Adirondack Forum > Hunting and Fishing in the Adirondacks
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-28-2015, 05:09 PM   #61
ADKpikebuster
Member
 
ADKpikebuster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: way back
Posts: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by serotonin View Post
Strange.

Imagine the outcry if somebody blew the top 100 feet off of Mt. Marcy w/explosives.
Then somebody irreparably destroys forever the habitat of a lake (Little Tupper) which held a species intact for 12,000 years, and people barely bat an eyelid.

Some people even make fun of it.
Some people think it's pristine.

Strange.
Challenge accepted
__________________
in memory of Jimmy Johnson, an Adirondack Legend

I used to drink a lot. I still do...but I used to, too

http://youtu.be/DJH8iMb2YXk YEEFRICKINYEEE "
ADKpikebuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 07:57 AM   #62
tiogaguy
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by streamer View Post
No one's taking your bait buster. ..Move along
Nothing like an "open" forum to allow people to express their opinion. So we must all think like you to be considered to have a legitimate opinion? If we are not "with you" then we're against you? Sounds like a very elitist attitude.

...and some beautiful places are inhabited by people who think they are beautiful...

The money from brook trout and landlocked salmon restoration can come from the cessation of Brown and Rainbow trout and Pacific Salmon rearing. There would be more than enough money for restoration and habitat protection.
tiogaguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 10:29 AM   #63
vtflyfish
Brookie Addict
 
vtflyfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: West coast of New England
Posts: 2,527
[QUOTE=tiogaguy;227931]Nothing like an "open" forum to allow people to express their opinion. So we must all think like you to be considered to have a legitimate opinion? If we are not "with you" then we're against you? Sounds like a very elitist attitude.
QUOTE]

Tiogaguy,

You'll notice that in my personal history on this forum I've been a)highly vocal on some subjects and b)highly opinionated. I also very much enjoy a good debate centered on facts, principles and points of view.

The problem I have with mr. 'buster's behavior is it a)isn't adding anything to the conversation and b)seems solely aimed at being (negatively) provocative. That is why several of us have put up comments in the 'move along' category.
__________________
Oscar Wilde:Work is the curse of the drinking class
vtflyfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 11:47 AM   #64
streamer
Member
 
streamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 79
Good grief Tioga, are you serious!? Buster claims to have introduced bass into Little Tupper, claims to love slaughtering brook trout, suggests the introduction of pike is the solution, and then says its no big deal because he doesn't fish in affected locations.
Have I missed something here?
I wouldn't consider anything about properly calling out a troll elitest..
streamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 01:01 PM   #65
Gman
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Standing in a stream waving a stick
Posts: 1,009
If you did not stock brown or rainbow trout in NY state rivers you would have almost no stream fishery whatsoever only what is available in the headwaters. Getting browns to holdover in these rivers is hard enough. You want the Ausable brook trout? Here is what you need to have happen.

Rip up all the paved roads and parking lots in the vicinity. Only gravel.
Tear out all the culverts
Suck the silt out of the river
Tear down the dam at Wilmington
Allow another hundred years for the mature evergreen forest to grow back
No more water from the river to make snow at Whiteface
No more salt and sand on the roads

That is just a start but none of that is ever going to happen.
__________________
Izaak Walton a great writer? He can't even spell COMPLETE.
Gman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 01:39 PM   #66
tiogaguy
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman View Post
If you did not stock brown or rainbow trout in NY state rivers you would have almost no stream fishery whatsoever only what is available in the headwaters. Getting browns to holdover in these rivers is hard enough. You want the Ausable brook trout? Here is what you need to have happen.

Rip up all the paved roads and parking lots in the vicinity. Only gravel.
Tear out all the culverts
Suck the silt out of the river
Tear down the dam at Wilmington
Allow another hundred years for the mature evergreen forest to grow back
No more water from the river to make snow at Whiteface
No more salt and sand on the roads

That is just a start but none of that is ever going to happen.
So maybe they (it) weren't (wasn't) meant to be "trout" fisheries. Let the suckers, sculpin, and dace dominate. Just like 200 years ago.

You are an advocate for all trout. Dr. Henshall was an advocate for bass in his time. Whats the difference? Non-native is non-native!!! I don't want my fishing license money to go for 24 hr guards around every lake in the Adirondacks. We already have laws. The money can be reprogrammed by stopping the stocking of non-native species and put into remediation. I think you underestimate the resilience of brook trout. There are numerous small streams in the southern tier of NY that don't appear to be "native brook trout" waters but support breeding populations. Deforested, silt laden in places, cow crossings, salt and sand from roads, and yet they survive to produce a "fishable" population of native fish. I agree some remediation needs to be done in smaller bodies of water where the bass can be removed, but in a big lake like Little Tupper, they will both find a niche. The simplest thing to do is remove the bag and size limits on bass in selected waters. That and quit stocking non-native trout. We may love brook trout here but they are the scourge of native trout waters in the west. Funny, huh?
tiogaguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 01:51 PM   #67
Glen
Check please
 
Glen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntington Bay, NY
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiogaguy View Post
So maybe they (it) weren't (wasn't) meant to be "trout" fisheries. Let the suckers, sculpin, and dace dominate. Just like 200 years ago.

You are an advocate for all trout. Dr. Henshall was an advocate for bass in his time. Whats the difference? Non-native is non-native!!! I don't want my fishing license money to go for 24 hr guards around every lake in the Adirondacks. We already have laws. The money can be reprogrammed by stopping the stocking of non-native species and put into remediation. I think you underestimate the resilience of brook trout. There are numerous small streams in the southern tier of NY that don't appear to be "native brook trout" waters but support breeding populations. Deforested, silt laden in places, cow crossings, salt and sand from roads, and yet they survive to produce a "fishable" population of native fish. I agree some remediation needs to be done in smaller bodies of water where the bass can be removed, but in a big lake like Little Tupper, they will both find a niche. The simplest thing to do is remove the bag and size limits on bass in selected waters. That and quit stocking non-native trout. We may love brook trout here but they are the scourge of native trout waters in the west. Funny, huh?

I'm seriously happy that you are not involved in fisheries management.
Glen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 02:09 PM   #68
tiogaguy
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glen View Post
I'm seriously happy that you are not involved in fisheries management.
What you are talking about isn't true management. It's wanting your cake and eating it, too. Stocking non-native species of YOUR liking is good management, but the stocking of fish you disdain is bad management??? Did I mention the word elitist?
tiogaguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 02:14 PM   #69
Glen
Check please
 
Glen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntington Bay, NY
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiogaguy View Post
What you are talking about isn't true management. It's wanting your cake and eating it, too. Stocking non-native species of YOUR liking is good management, but the stocking of fish you disdain is bad management??? Did I mention the word elitist?

You make as much sense as your buddy. Show me where I advocated that. I fish for brook trout primarily, but to suggest that the fish whose original range is reduced by 95 percent is resilient, then I guess you consider stunted remnant populations viable fisheries.
Glen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 02:43 PM   #70
tiogaguy
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 49
I don't think many of the stream have "stunted" fish. Their size is congruent with their habitat. So your idea of management is to take native brook trout water and dump several thousand much larger non-native browns and rainbows to compete with them? Interesting, how then will we ever know whether they will able to "reclaim" some of their original range? The reduction in range was probably inevitable to some degree due to a multitude of environmental changes, not related to humans. Heck, we'd still have dinosaurs if nothing ever changed. Personally, I've like nothing more than catching a 6 inch brookie on a #16 fly on my 3 weight. Not as "photo worthy" as one of those left over brood browns, but that's just me.
tiogaguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 02:55 PM   #71
tiogaguy
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 49
Hey Glen, there will be 75 people living at your house tomorrow. All of them will be over 300 lbs and 6'6", don't mind them. You don't mind sharing your bed, bath, and kitchen with them do you?
tiogaguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 03:37 PM   #72
Glen
Check please
 
Glen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntington Bay, NY
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiogaguy View Post
I don't think many of the stream have "stunted" fish. Their size is congruent with their habitat. So your idea of management is to take native brook trout water and dump several thousand much larger non-native browns and rainbows to compete with them? Interesting, how then will we ever know whether they will able to "reclaim" some of their original range? The reduction in range was probably inevitable to some degree due to a multitude of environmental changes, not related to humans. Heck, we'd still have dinosaurs if nothing ever changed. Personally, I've like nothing more than catching a 6 inch brookie on a #16 fly on my 3 weight. Not as "photo worthy" as one of those left over brood browns, but that's just me.
Again, show me where I advocated that. Still waiting. You just want to argue and be a clown, so you can do that by yourself.
Glen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 03:38 PM   #73
Glen
Check please
 
Glen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntington Bay, NY
Posts: 1,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiogaguy View Post
Hey Glen, there will be 75 people living at your house tomorrow. All of them will be over 300 lbs and 6'6", don't mind them. You don't mind sharing your bed, bath, and kitchen with them do you?

You're competing with Pikebuster for the most off topic, senseless and downright stupid posts on this forum. That's really saying something but I have a feeling you can beat him.
Glen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 03:52 PM   #74
Gman
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Standing in a stream waving a stick
Posts: 1,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiogaguy View Post
I don't think many of the stream have "stunted" fish. Their size is congruent with their habitat. So your idea of management is to take native brook trout water and dump several thousand much larger non-native browns and rainbows to compete with them? Interesting, how then will we ever know whether they will able to "reclaim" some of their original range? The reduction in range was probably inevitable to some degree due to a multitude of environmental changes, not related to humans. Heck, we'd still have dinosaurs if nothing ever changed. Personally, I've like nothing more than catching a 6 inch brookie on a #16 fly on my 3 weight. Not as "photo worthy" as one of those left over brood browns, but that's just me.
I am not talking about headwater streams. At one time all the major brown trout streams (except new tailwaters) were brook trout fisheries. It is very well documented. The catches were incredible and gluttonous. Around the 1880's over fishing and habitat destruction led to a precipitous decline of these brook trout fisheries. At first stocking of brook trout was tried but did little fix situation.

If they had of put the skids on then and stopped the decline of the environment and overfishing they may have saved the brook trout in those rivers. But it was probably too late and besides the mindset to do it just wasn't there at that time.

DeWitt Clinton knew when he built the Erie Canal he was wiping out Atlantic Salmon in NY State but that didn't stop him.

So just as the brookie was fading along comes the brown to save these fisheries. If that did not happen a huge chunk of American fly fishing history and fly fishing as we know it today would simply not exist. Catching browns demanded a new patterns and tactics. They have been part of the landscape now for almost 150 years.
__________________
Izaak Walton a great writer? He can't even spell COMPLETE.
Gman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 04:01 PM   #75
Gman
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Standing in a stream waving a stick
Posts: 1,009
I do not think NY State DEC stock any waters where the possibility of a self sustaining brook trout fishery exists. I know of a good sized stream (a 3/4 Ausable) in the ADK's where there is self sustaining population of brookies from its headwaters to where it runs into a larger body of water and it has never been stocked with brown trout.
__________________
Izaak Walton a great writer? He can't even spell COMPLETE.
Gman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 04:22 PM   #76
vtflyfish
Brookie Addict
 
vtflyfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: West coast of New England
Posts: 2,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiogaguy View Post
I don't think many of the stream have "stunted" fish. Their size is congruent with their habitat. So your idea of management is to take native brook trout water and dump several thousand much larger non-native browns and rainbows to compete with them? Interesting, how then will we ever know whether they will able to "reclaim" some of their original range? The reduction in range was probably inevitable to some degree due to a multitude of environmental changes, not related to humans. Heck, we'd still have dinosaurs if nothing ever changed. Personally, I've like nothing more than catching a 6 inch brookie on a #16 fly on my 3 weight. Not as "photo worthy" as one of those left over brood browns, but that's just me.
Brook Trout by Nick Karas should be on your reading list. He did an amazing job of describing the how and why brook trout range decreased by 95%. The loss of habitat was solely, 100% due to the actions of human beings. Sure, they hang on in small, unexpected places but they're not coming back into the big river systems. Even Gman's suggested steps wouldn't do it. So trout fishing in rivers is probably going to be for rainbows and browns during our lifetimes.

The big promising area is in the smaller waterbodies. The DEC, starting with Bill Flick and then continuing with guys like Leo Demong and Rich Preall did amazing work at sorting out the native strains and getting them established and breeding in a large number of ponds. This is exciting and revolutionary work, beyond what has been done with any other trout or char species anywhere in the world. We have them to thank for resurrecting a whole lot of water that was lost to invasives.

Unfortunately, their techniques don't scale up. There's not enough Rotenone in the world to poison the bass out of Little Tupper, all its headwaters and outflow, let alone all the other former brook trout monocultures.

So my take, for what it's worth is to:
  • Treasure the brook trout habitat and restoration programs we have and guard those zealously.
  • Educate widely so that we don't lose more habitat, ever, using our past human behavior as an example of what not to do.
  • Accept that fishing the big water bodies in the Adirondacks will forevermore be for invasive species, those being perch, pike, bass, rainbows and browns.
__________________
Oscar Wilde:Work is the curse of the drinking class
vtflyfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 10:16 PM   #77
Creekwader
Snag Locator
 
Creekwader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In the Place of the Nettles
Posts: 935
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADKpikebuster View Post
Challenge accepted
Here's hoping for a quick fuse.
Creekwader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2015, 09:08 PM   #78
JW
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 153
Right on VT! We probably could use a fisherman education course similar to hunter education to even be allowed to show up at certain ponds. Not that i am a fan of big government - but, if i have to deal with it in every other aspect of life...
JW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2015, 09:57 AM   #79
tiogaguy
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 49
The steams in the southern tier are far more compromised than the ADKS. There's no comparison. Yet, the native Char manage to reproduce and spread through the creek systems. I think these fish are far more resilient than they are given credit for. I caught my biggest Brookie (13.5 inches) miles downstream from the headwater section. Many other friends I fish with have caught native 4-6 fish miles downstream from the headwaters. They are fewer and far between in the lower sections of the creek I'm speaking of. But why? Well, the lower sections are heavily stocked with browns. Any native fish that try to take hold are reduced by the throngs of put and takers trying to catch their limits as provided by DEC license agreement. I've had this conversation with a local biologist who feels the Brookies could do much better, but can't fully reestablish due to the heavy pressure from stocking.

The ADKs are far better habitat than my area. Name one major river system where the DEC has ceased stocking non-native trout and just allowed the Native indigenous (not hatchery char) fish to slowly spread through the water shed? Never...because there would be outrage. The DEC's prophecy is self fulfilling: the char won't, can't, warm water, bad habitat, blah blah blah. So we must stock.

Is this thread about the FISH or the FISHING???
tiogaguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2015, 10:56 AM   #80
Gman
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Standing in a stream waving a stick
Posts: 1,009
Wrong again. Many streams on the southern tier are far better habitat than ADK streams. The Genegantslet, Cohocton, Wiscoy etc. have more wild trout and holdover trout. Many southern tier streams are no longer stocked. Get a copy of the river survey done on the Ausable back in the 90's.
__________________
Izaak Walton a great writer? He can't even spell COMPLETE.
Gman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.