Smithsonian Article about Native Trout

[French_Nympher]

Outstanding article from the Smithsonian

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/trout_main.html

Thanks to my friend Dave M. for pointing this out.

[Ruby River]

I wonder, has anyone has written an article about the mental instability that sets in when an angler doesn't get out to fish because of too much snow? This is killing me. What makes it worse is that each passing snow day, when I can't get out to fish, is taking away from June when I can get out. Sheesh.... Anyone else getting antsy? (no pun intended)

[TROUTI]

I am in the same boat, so to speak Ruby!! Already had six snow days and no fishing days! Killing me too.

[Jon]

French Nympher - that is a wonderful article, not just in giving a balanced perspective as to the realities of what we laughingly refer to as "invasive" species (like we had no hand in the invasion), but also a valuable history of how so many trout species came to be here in the first place, and where we go next. No one size fits all, it seems.

One wee criticism: I find statements like the one below to be a bit sensationalist. I guess I'm secretly glad that so few people realize just how abundant and accessible brook trout are in Connecticut!

"Today, although marginalized and reduced in number, the beleaguered brook trout hangs on in the East. The fish find refuge in the high, thin tributaries of the Catskills; in the secluded ponds of Maine and Michigan; and in the little rivers of the Blue Ridge and the Alleghenies."

Could have fooled me.

Jon

[Andrew]

Enjoyed that article. I generally come down on the side of native fish, be they trout or anything else (i.e. I usually place biological diversity above fishing), but I think there's always room for a balanced approach, and that article did a nice job of suggesting how these two things don't always have to be at odds.

Just for the record, biologists usually consider a non-native species to be "invasive" if it has a large and important impact on native biodiversity, but only to be "exotic" or "introduced" or "non-native" (and so on) if it has established itself but doesn't have much of an impact on other species.

[Jon]

Just for my record, I only consider what biologists have to say. It's a dangerous thing when folks take an arbitrary disliking for one invasive species over another.

As you know, Andrew, as an armchair ecologist, I never did get my head around the term "invasive". It was always my understanding that invading is what all species evolve to do. The concept of what is or is not 'original' is muddy to me and seems to depend on where you draw the line in time. I recall we talked about this over cheap whisky one morning and my wife wasn't very pleased. I had to invade the spare room.

Jonny

[Andrew]

Yes, you're right: they do evolve to "invade". The difference, usually, in what makes something "invasive" in the "not good for biodiversity" sense is usually a matter of the temporal scale. Things that move around on their own, and evolve to their new surroundings, do so on a time scale that allows the other species they might interact with to respond in a reasonable matter (i.e. ecologically/evolutionarily). The "unnatural" part about human-assissted invasions isn't that humans are unnatural, but that these sorts of invasions happen on time scales that aren't typical (but even so, I wouldn't go so far as to say "unnatural" - certainly, there are times when an entirely unassissted, by humans, invasion is going to happen - think about the Galapagos islands.)

I would generally agree with you that the line is 'muddy' - to me, in a lot of ways, it makes more sense for us to make decisions about whether it is "good" or "bad" that a species has arrived in a new place based not so much on history, but on the consequences. By those criteria, it won't always be clear whether we're best to introduce a new sport fish or not.

But the reason I often come down on the side of the "natives", if we talking about the potential for real serious effects of a new arrival, is that once something is extinct, we ain't getting it back. And another reason is that, in general, I think we're richer when we've got diversity. A lot of people disagree with me, but I have always enjoyed fishing in places where not only was there a chance to catch a large fish, but also where I didn't always know what I was going to catch. Sometimes bringing in some new critters actually increases the diversity of options; othertimes, not.

You know my criteria for good fish. The best fish is big, strong, beautiful, native, and wild. Sometimes you get all five in a single fish (stripers, for example), but sometimes the best I can hope for is for some of those things on my list. Brookies are, usually, beautiful, native, and wild, but not so big (at least by my standards; I understand why you feel differently).

Carp: beautiful, strong, big, and wild. Four out of five ain't bad. You're unlikely to find me complaining much about that slurpy invasive!

[Jon]

Well put.


it makes more sense for us to make decisions about whether it is "good" or "bad" that a species has arrived in a new place based not so much on history, but on the consequences.

By this I interpret your meaning as "consequences on the ecological system in question" and not because the fragmites is spoiling my view of my local salt pond. Human interaction doesn't always consider the ecological, of course.



You know my criteria for good fish. The best fish is big, strong, beautiful, native, and wild, at least by my standards; I understand why you feel differently).

Yes, 4 out of 5 is a good average.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c85/Kirkaig/Atherton/silver.jpg

[Andrew]

Huh? Silversides ARE native.

[Jon]

This is clearly a Domestic, Andrew.