Insects and other foods the trout may be eating:
1. Blue-winged Olives (Little Eastern BWOs)
2. Little Sister Caddis (mostly Abrams Creek)
3. Cream Cahills
4. Little Yellow Stoneflies (Little Summer Stones)
5. Little Green Stoneflies
6. Slate Drakes
7. . Streamers (Sculpin, Minnows)
8. Inch Worms
Some Thoughts About Restoring Everything To Native Species Only
The "native species management" fad isn't just about the brook trout of the Smokies.
It seems it's a top priority of many agencies that handle the management of all our
natural resources. Recent management practices lean towards this ideology.
Wherever one species poses a treat to another, current policy seems to be the
species posing the treat needs to be eradicated. More and more species that have
been introduced by man, always with the thoughts that such action was the right thing
to do and that it would benefit something, are now deemed an intolerable threat to
some other species deemed native.
What is native? I'm neither a scientist nor a genus at determining such, but the best
I can determine, the word "native" is defined by first selecting a particular point in time.
This particular point in time, irregardless of who selects it, would be an arbitrary date.
Let's take the brook trout, for example. I have read over and over where the
Appalachian Brook Trout hasn't always existed in the Appalachian Mountains. The
brains that deal in such say they arrived about 10,000 years ago during the last ice
age. I read where glaciers and ice covered everything north of central Kentucky and
the movement of the ice changed the location of rivers and lakes. According to the
people that study such, the brook trout stayed below or south of the ice during this
movement in order to survive. Accordingly, this is how they ended up in the mountains
as far south as what's now Northern Georgia. When the ice receded, the brook trout
found the highest, coldest water they could find and remain here as of this date in
time. I guess such conceptions is one reason I've always been far more concerned
with what's going on in the future than what has happened in the past. Yes, I do
realize what has happened definitely affects what's going to happen and that's the
main point of this article.
Now, back to native species, if this happened as those that deal in these types of
things say it happened, and this was the time brook trout arrived from the north to as
far south as what's now Georgia, it means brook trout are not native to the
Appalachian Mountains - unless, you want to arbitrarily choose 10,000 years ago
as the point in time fish species are deemed native or exotic.
Of even a larger consideration, if we need to get rid of everything exotic and keep
only what's native, as defined by a certain date in time, that means we will eventually
have only Arctic Char (brook trout) as cold water species to fish for in the South.
There will not be any brown trout and not only in the South, but not anywhere in
America. You couldn't fish for rainbow trout any longer. They would only exist on the
West Coast of California, Canada and Alaska where the water drains towards the
Pacific Ocean. They would not really be native species, rather mixed breeds of hybrid
trout. It means that in Yellowstone National Park, for example, we would only have
Yellowstone cutthroat, Westslope cutthroat, and Grayling to fish for, the three species
the park officials are concerned with there.
I can't help but also think, that such policies also imply the world was perfect
10,000 years ago and now it's a mess. If you consider native as being millions of
years ago, then there wouldn't be any fish existing in the Smokies or
Yellowstone National Park.
Now, before this gets interpreted as meaning I think the brook trout restoration plan
should be dropped, please be advised that's not correct at all. I'm for those projects
currently proposed as much as anyone. I'm pointing this out only for the
approximately 1200-1500 people who read my daily article on this website for their
own personal consideration. Lets see, so far there has been elk re-introduced, wolves
(that didn't work), otters, and a host of other things. All in all, I think the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park is doing well on this subject, but decisions involving such
shouldn't be something that any government agency has the sole right to
make at its own discretion. It shouldn't be something James Marsh should be able
to control. It should be something that is the will of the people with interest in such
matters because if nothing else, you can easily see how such things can affect what
exist and doesn't exist in the future.
I do not think anyone, including fish managers, should ignore reality and in
some cases, not involving GSMNP, they are doing just that. It's sad enough
that the U.S. Government continues to ignore the huge, dangerous national deficient.
It's sad enough that at least half of our congress and even our President wants to try
to fool American citizens into thinking that saving 200 billion dollars over a period of
ten years (cutting out the private jet tax loop hole) is going to solve the 14,000 billion
dollar (14 trillion) debt crisis. That won't pay a small part of the interest, yet they keep
highlighting it as a major way to solve the problem.
For at least the most part, man is responsible for the exotic species that
exist in the World today. It was man that not many years ago, thought it was wise to
stock rainbow and brown trout in Great Smoky Mountains National Park and rainbow,
brook and brown trout in Yellowstone National Park. It's quite clear, man can ____,
_____, _____....well, I'll leave it at that and for your consideration.
Copyright 2011 James Marsh