Arizona Fly Fishing Forums  

Go Back   Arizona Fly Fishing Forums > Arizona Fly Fishing > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-14-2017, 10:05 PM
T Gunn's Avatar
T Gunn T Gunn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPoppa View Post
It's intriguing to me to think that this same agency the (N.P.S.) is okay with brown trout in numerous bodies of waters throughout Yellowstone are okay with brownies mucking out native Yellowstone cutties. But yet In the Grand Canyon they are treated like terrorists trying to make their way through JFK airport sh!^ pisses me off. I'm no fish biologist but Fu%# man these NPS guys need to chill.

Viva la Salmo Trutta !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm with you on this. The ultimate irony is the NPS stocked brown trout in the Grand Canyon almost a hundred years ago (1923) in the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt...for sportfish and recreation and because it was the perfect habitat for them to survive and thrive. There is a great deal of hypocrisy and irony in this entire process. Browns and rainbows coexist in virtually every cold tailwater in North America.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-15-2017, 06:49 AM
MYT1 MYT1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 65
I was at the meeting.

The problem isn't Brown Trout co-habitating with Rainbow Trout.

The problem is with Brown Trout co-habitating with the native fish in the Colorado River, like the Humpback Chub.

Apparently, Brown Trout, Rainbow Trout not so much, are very aggressive at eating Humpback Chub.

The NPS is also under mandate to enforce the Engangered Species Act, plus I'm sure a lot of other laws aimed at preserving the Grand Canyon in as natural a state as possible.

I think the NPS should have all the tools they need at their disposal to achieve this nearly impossible task, as long as there is plenty of public input before they implement some of the more drastic measures, such as chemically killing fish, or building permanent barriers and pipe systems.

I'm a huge fly fishing guy, but I'm an even more huge environmental guy.

I thought the meeting on Tuesday was filled with a lot of self-serving fly fisherman who only cared about keeping there beloved fishing and the envirnment be damned.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-15-2017, 08:42 AM
KellyC KellyC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 72
If the Browns have been there for 94 years, they've been eating the little humpies for 94 years, and both are still there, along with the rainbows. Every fish is native to somewhere. I like to think they're native to water. We have water, we have fish, 'nuf said. Let's keep it simple and leave well enough alone.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-15-2017, 09:06 AM
littledog littledog is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 4
MYT1;
Please tell me what is "natural" about the Glen Canyon dam.
You missed the opportunity to "preserve the Grand Canyon" back in 1955.
It's the dam that prevents the Grand Canyon from being "natural" all the way to Lake Mead. Not the trout.
Get over it.
Meanwhile, let's make the resulting tail water the best trout fishery possible in the most dramatic location in the US.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-15-2017, 09:19 AM
Chasintrout Chasintrout is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 46
I think protecting the environment is a worthy goal and is one shared by just about every fly-fisherman but we need to be careful not to let that become an excuse to not look at the science. To me this issue is less about protecting the environment and more about the evolution of species.

The verdict is in, man has greatly influenced the eco system of the colorado river and trout not only thrive in this water but they have no negative affect on the environment. In addition they serve us well by creating opportunity for income and leisure. The cost? Diminishing numbers of native species. Is it worth it? To me, a trout pursuer, yes, but I'm biased.

The tragedy is that once again laws have been created that take the power out of our hands and put it into the federal governments hands to use as they see fit. People like Terry who are on the water daily have seen the potential of this fishery and want to enjoy it and see others enjoy it have to spend their time fighting the powers that be rather than do what they love. We're fighting politicians and researchers who may not even live in our state and what they love about the river is not negatively affected by diminishing numbers of native fishes, in fact no one would know their numbers have shrunk if not for tax dollars going to pay for tracking projects.

To Kelly's point, these fish have all existed together for 100 years. I'm sure native fish numbers have declined but I think we can all agree that has a lot more to do with the dam and the clear cold trout water now flowing beneath it than the trout themselves.

I'm wondering if this is more about killing brown trout or increasing the numbers of chubs and suckers? Will we be happy when the native fish population has grown significantly or will that only happen when all the trout are dead?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-15-2017, 11:15 AM
KellyC KellyC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chasintrout View Post
Will we be happy when the native fish population has grown significantly or will that only happen when all the trout are dead?
Bingo! I think the end goal of the group of so-called environmentalists targeting the ferry is to see the chub and other warm water species thriving and the trout gone. They'd like to have the dam gone too, but probably assume that isn't going to happen.......although with all the crazy thinking going on in Washington, who knows if the dam won't some day be in play too!

Thus, they'll try to sell the idea of shocking "just the brown trout", effectively killing all the trout, and then try to change policies to spill enough warm water down the channel from the surface water of Lake Powell to maintain that new equilibrium.

The don't give a rats fanny about the communities like Page and the guides like Terry who make a living by helping people enjoy the beauty and resources of the canyon and surrounding area. I think they'd unemploy the whole area to save a fish that few have ever seen, or even want to see.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-15-2017, 12:44 PM
COLOFLY COLOFLY is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Uncompahgre Valley, CO
Posts: 43
they can do whatever they want and they still will NOT get rid of all the browns. Period. No way would that be possible unless they kill everything in the river. And even then I think a few of every species will survive or find its way from a tributary back to the main stem river.

It is about $$$$.

Your state just like CO will mange fisheries for there job (job security that is) and funding they receive for "managing" these types of fisheries.

Take the Yampa River. It has pike in it that are killing native species. They shock said river every yr or so that must cost about $100000- $200000. (boat, electrodes, personnel, trucks, fuel, ect) A reservoir that has a tributary to the Yampa has pike in it. They drained the lake built the dam to hold more water and put in escape barriers to keep fish from leaving the reservoir. They tag fish and found out that the pike and smallies are still escaping the reservoir so now they are talking about killing the lake off so that the pike and smallies won't be able to escape and enter the Yampa river which already holds..... pike and smallies.They cannot rid the river of these invasive species so they do what they call manage the fishery.

Now just wait until the burbot come from the Green River (Flaming Gorge) and enter the Yampa....


Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-15-2017, 04:35 PM
Plateau Angler's Avatar
Plateau Angler Plateau Angler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Crossville, TN
Posts: 457
I care deeply about native species as much as the next person, but until they deal with the root cause (Glen Canyon Dam), this is all ridiculous and a waste of money on the part of the NPS. The trout "management" that has been ongoing on the Grand Canyon NP has been frustrating because it is such a waste of resources. You can eliminate fish from the creeks, shock the main river, etc., but until that dam goes, it is all for nought.

We all know the dam isn't going anywhere, so like others have said they should simply manage the river with the new reality of a cold water fishery and quit putting bandaids on amputated limbs to try and stop the bleeding.
__________________
"Everyone ought to believe in something; I believe I'll go fishing."

The Trout Zone Blog

http://www.troutzoneanglers.com
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-16-2017, 10:32 AM
MYT1 MYT1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 65
"We all know the dam isn't going anywhere, so like others have said they should simply manage the river with the new reality of a cold water fishery and quit putting bandaids on amputated limbs to try and stop the bleeding."

I should've known there were two sides to this argument.

Now I'm more confused than ever.

So now I'm thinking if the government is so concerned about native species they should of thought of that before they irreversibly changed the native habit of the native species by building the Glenn Canyon Dam.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-16-2017, 06:23 PM
COLOFLY COLOFLY is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Uncompahgre Valley, CO
Posts: 43
"We are the government and we are here to help"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Logos, Trademarks are property of their owners. Other content Copyright 2006-2015 azflyandtie.com . All Rights Reserved.