Re: When was the last time you saw a porcupine in the Eastern Si
Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:23 am
el cuervo,
First....This thread is about Porcupines and not Golden Trout or frogs! Porcupines are the ones that have the little spinney things on their backs.
Second.....Trout do not eat virtually everything in the water column. If they did, my fishing success would be greater than what it is now.
Third.....The paradox between golden trout and frogs is where every creature has a right to exist and persist. How can you not agree with this? Regardless, if fish eat frogs, why cant we have both frogs and fish in the high country? Mountain Lions eat Bighorn Sheep, yet nothing has been done manage the protected - Mountain Lion who eats the listed Sierra Bighorn. What's up with that. Appears to be a double standard. Both Golden Trout, MYLF, Mountain Lions, Sierra Bighorns, and even Porcupines are all species that partially, or completely evolved in the Sierras, agreed???? Do we agree the historic habitat of all these species have been fragmented? If we agree on these two things, maybe you will agree with the idea of managing for these critters in locations where they do well and go from there rather than adding more of an impact to ecosystems by changing management practices every year. Just doesn't work!!! Lets go poison a lake of all trout so we can spend a lot of money to establish frog populations in areas they were not historically successful. Its a bang for your buck issue as well. I'm all for pie in the sky management objectives but face it....there are just too many factors and agendas to reach pie in the sky status. If I had to chose, I would chose to manage for trout. Fishing licenses pay for more non fish related management programs that create habitat for other creatures than frogs licenses do (wait....you don't buy a frog license).
Fourth.....el cuervo you ask what training I base my thoughts on? Call it a degree in Environmental and Natural Recourse Science with an emphasis in hydrology and more than a couple of years working in the industry.
Fifth......el cuervo you made a comment "ever wonder why they are non-sustainable" in regards to my comment to "encourage folks to show support for supplementing non sustainable fisheries i.e. support back country stocking programs!!"
I would assume these fisheries are probably not sustainable because the fish cant reproduce. They may not have the conditions necessary to reproduce. They may not have the right habitat or food source necessary to reproduce. Since it is a FACT that trout dine on MYLFs, it appears to me that the best fisheries are those that have a robust population of frogs for fish to eat. A frog filled fish is a happy fish and a happy fish is always down to get freaky with a female fish! Frog Filled Fat Fish??? Anyone ever clean a High Sierra fish with a frog in its belly? I've caught 1000s of fish in the back country and not one frog. I guess I'm fishing in the wrong lakes.
Sixth.......I'm thrilled Roland cares about entire ecosystems, so when he is done with frogs lets sick him on the New Zealand Mud Snail issue. I would love to start a Porcupine movement if indeed there is a need for one. I would much rather start a movement to manage those introduced species that you mentioned. The introduced species that came into the Eastern Sierra and took over the landscape, changing everything including other species ways of life, throwing everything off balance. Yep lets manage those type...the invasive ones...you know!
Seventh....Yes if you want to call me a subset of One species (subset-human) or what ever, that is ok, but fishing/hunting/raising my own food what ever you want to call it isn't just a hobby but a way of life, lets see which subset out evolves the other !!!
First....This thread is about Porcupines and not Golden Trout or frogs! Porcupines are the ones that have the little spinney things on their backs.
Second.....Trout do not eat virtually everything in the water column. If they did, my fishing success would be greater than what it is now.
Third.....The paradox between golden trout and frogs is where every creature has a right to exist and persist. How can you not agree with this? Regardless, if fish eat frogs, why cant we have both frogs and fish in the high country? Mountain Lions eat Bighorn Sheep, yet nothing has been done manage the protected - Mountain Lion who eats the listed Sierra Bighorn. What's up with that. Appears to be a double standard. Both Golden Trout, MYLF, Mountain Lions, Sierra Bighorns, and even Porcupines are all species that partially, or completely evolved in the Sierras, agreed???? Do we agree the historic habitat of all these species have been fragmented? If we agree on these two things, maybe you will agree with the idea of managing for these critters in locations where they do well and go from there rather than adding more of an impact to ecosystems by changing management practices every year. Just doesn't work!!! Lets go poison a lake of all trout so we can spend a lot of money to establish frog populations in areas they were not historically successful. Its a bang for your buck issue as well. I'm all for pie in the sky management objectives but face it....there are just too many factors and agendas to reach pie in the sky status. If I had to chose, I would chose to manage for trout. Fishing licenses pay for more non fish related management programs that create habitat for other creatures than frogs licenses do (wait....you don't buy a frog license).
Fourth.....el cuervo you ask what training I base my thoughts on? Call it a degree in Environmental and Natural Recourse Science with an emphasis in hydrology and more than a couple of years working in the industry.
Fifth......el cuervo you made a comment "ever wonder why they are non-sustainable" in regards to my comment to "encourage folks to show support for supplementing non sustainable fisheries i.e. support back country stocking programs!!"
I would assume these fisheries are probably not sustainable because the fish cant reproduce. They may not have the conditions necessary to reproduce. They may not have the right habitat or food source necessary to reproduce. Since it is a FACT that trout dine on MYLFs, it appears to me that the best fisheries are those that have a robust population of frogs for fish to eat. A frog filled fish is a happy fish and a happy fish is always down to get freaky with a female fish! Frog Filled Fat Fish??? Anyone ever clean a High Sierra fish with a frog in its belly? I've caught 1000s of fish in the back country and not one frog. I guess I'm fishing in the wrong lakes.
Sixth.......I'm thrilled Roland cares about entire ecosystems, so when he is done with frogs lets sick him on the New Zealand Mud Snail issue. I would love to start a Porcupine movement if indeed there is a need for one. I would much rather start a movement to manage those introduced species that you mentioned. The introduced species that came into the Eastern Sierra and took over the landscape, changing everything including other species ways of life, throwing everything off balance. Yep lets manage those type...the invasive ones...you know!
Seventh....Yes if you want to call me a subset of One species (subset-human) or what ever, that is ok, but fishing/hunting/raising my own food what ever you want to call it isn't just a hobby but a way of life, lets see which subset out evolves the other !!!