Quote:
Originally Posted by Billfish715
And yet, we never hear about any drastic affects to stocking furunculosis riddled brown trout into Pa's waters. With all of the diseased brooks and browns that NJ unloaded into many non trout production waters, there has been no report,of which I am aware, of the effects of those infected trout on other fish species within those waters.
Let's just keep dumping thousands of rainbows into all of the streams and hope they don't affect the existing "native" browns and brookies. With all of those rainbows being stocked, shouldn't they present incredible competition with the other two naturally producing species? Shouldn't they be the ones, by now, that are naturally spawning and reproducing on a wider scale? I'm waiting for someone to be "salmonidically correct" and demand sections of streams to be protected for wild rainbow trout production just like the ones for brooks and browns. If browns and brookies are the ones that naturally reproduce in the streams, then start stocking them again and cut back on the rainbows.
|
I think the majority of wild populations arent in the same stretches as stocked trout. Maybe if the stocking points were lowered downstream, maybe some wild populations could have the chance of extending downstream too?
Browns and Brooks are just better at holding over and reproducing than rainbows for NJ's waters
(from my knowledge: Every stream that has wild rainbows also has the other two trout species, but never the other way around where it's exclusively rainbows.)
So just because there are now more rainbows being stocked doesnt necessarily mean there's going to be new streams supporting rainbow populations.
I am a bit in favor of that idea of stocking less where wild browns/brooks are. Some downstream sections of WTS do receive stockings, where I think wild trout could be swimming around fine instead.
