In Reply To:
Mistakes were made no doubt, and bucket biology definitely is unethical.
But before you call the rest of us stupid, and give the DWR credit for being such geniuses, you should think about this:
1. They have been "trained and educated" through the process of experimentation in our waters, sometimes with disasterous results.
2. Their research and board decisions are'nt always right.
3. A good majority of non-native speices were introduced to our waters long before there even was a DWR.
4. The majority of non-native speices are NOT sterile. The majority of Hybrid speices are sterile and some of those have been major failures. The Brake trout for instance, a cross between a lake trout and brown trout, released into Porcupine, was later discovered to suffer a life of blindness. Talk about playing God.
But the bulk of Rainbow, Brown, and brook trout (all intorduced), and many, if not most of the warmwater speices do reproduce.
5. There is a large emphasis on re-introducing native speices, but when you say
wherever possible, Many of those wherever's are into reservoirs... Which are by definition, UN-NATURAL.
In my never to be humble opinion, the DWR needs to focus on making the best out of what we have... Not wasting millions of dollars trying to bring a false sense of "natural restoration". This is the same kind of thinking that leads people to want to tear down Glenn Canyon Dam.
By the way, the one person I have'nt seen a post from in all of this is Slayer himself. I would be interested to hear what HE thinks about all of this.
Was the DWR officer that showed up at his door executing a warrant, or did Slayer give him permission to search his premises ?
I hope that he will post up and let us all know how this thing went down...
I don't believe I ever used the word stupid. Feel free to correct me.
1. Well, they were first "trained and educated" for at least six years getting their applicable Master's degree before they were hired to touch a fish. Every single one of them. Kent Summers had to go back and get his after twenty years to keep his job. Then the majority of them spent a few years as researchers before actually getting a job as a biologist.
2. What research is wrong? Based on what criteria? Can you give specifics and do you have research to back that up? I will agree 100% that board decisions are not always in the best interest of you or me.
3. Didn't I say that? I thought I did.
4. I must not have been very clear. The MAJORITY of NEWLY INTRODUCED SPECIES are STERILE. Mostly because they are hybrids. Think of those that have been introduced into waters over the past decade or so that are not natives: tiger musky, wiper, splake, tiger trout. I have been involved in the development of management plans. If a new species is proposed for a water, the first questions asked are about can they control the species (can it move out of it's intended water and will it overpopulate) and disease. Yes, it seemed for a while that FES was a little to fascinated with frankenstein. However, if memory serves me correctly, it was the brownbows and not brake that developed cataracts. The brake eggs did not eye up very well so were very expensive to produce.
5. Correct. However, there is more to it than just being native. Primarily, the state gets federal dollars for native fish. Second, it ensures that the control stays with the state and ESA listing does not come into play.
We have heard what you dislike about the DWR. So what SPECIFICALLY would you like see changed? What waters would you like to see managed differently? What species in those waters? Is this your own selfish (for lack of a better term) desires or what you think would be best for the states angling population as a whole?
Sorry if this seems like a hijacking of the thread. I just feel like we have beat Slayer into the dirt and would like to see some positive dialogue continue.