04-26-2010, 07:35 PM
my argument was not based on emotion. it was based on general impressions and assumptions, which are often just as faulty... hence i requested scientific evidence on the subject matter if someone had that at hand. also, i stated that i did support certain exceptions to those rules, although i will not rack my brain for all of my exceptions because no one cares.
like most people on this board, i disagree with the management of certain utah waters, and one of my disagreements involves the distribution of tiger trout. why, for instance, are tiger trout in an upper tributary lake such as smith-morehouse? so they can chomp on the few native cutts left in that drainage? one might say they're in the lake so anglers can have a fast-growing fish to harvest, as smith-morehouse is a popular camping and fishing spot. here, my opinion would be that many locations are not suitable for harvesting of trout, period. although i recognize that opinion differs with the majority of anglers on this board.
and yes, i would support the eradication of pike and burbot from utah waters. pike have decimated multiple drainages in alaska (where they are not a native species) and have contributed to the crash of some salmon and trout populations in that state. there is significant scientific evidence supporting that statement. fortunately pike tend to stick to the lakes and reservoirs, and their influence is relatively isolated. i'm ok with lake trout in certain locations because they have proven to coexist with other species of fish just fine in many places.
i stand by my statement that tigers in general suffer a higher incidence of malformations than other types of trout, although this has just been my general impression.
again, if anyone has any scientific data regarding the ability of tiger trout to coexist with other species and their rate of deformities, please share.
[signature]
like most people on this board, i disagree with the management of certain utah waters, and one of my disagreements involves the distribution of tiger trout. why, for instance, are tiger trout in an upper tributary lake such as smith-morehouse? so they can chomp on the few native cutts left in that drainage? one might say they're in the lake so anglers can have a fast-growing fish to harvest, as smith-morehouse is a popular camping and fishing spot. here, my opinion would be that many locations are not suitable for harvesting of trout, period. although i recognize that opinion differs with the majority of anglers on this board.
and yes, i would support the eradication of pike and burbot from utah waters. pike have decimated multiple drainages in alaska (where they are not a native species) and have contributed to the crash of some salmon and trout populations in that state. there is significant scientific evidence supporting that statement. fortunately pike tend to stick to the lakes and reservoirs, and their influence is relatively isolated. i'm ok with lake trout in certain locations because they have proven to coexist with other species of fish just fine in many places.
i stand by my statement that tigers in general suffer a higher incidence of malformations than other types of trout, although this has just been my general impression.
again, if anyone has any scientific data regarding the ability of tiger trout to coexist with other species and their rate of deformities, please share.
[signature]