as far as i know there are no native species of black bass east of the Appalachians... so it's not just trout.
I really don't know enough on this issue to have an opinion either way, but for the most part NOAA does an incredible job using science to act in the best interest of the ecosystem, with FWS & state agencies tending to be a little more cowboy in their actions. Highly doubt any of us know the genetic and behavioral differences between hudson and chesapeake strains to make a call on it... Perhaps the hudson bay strain has adapted a slightly different diet which could cause a significant negative impact if they consume more blue crab, oysters, whatever...
again, don't know enough about the situation, but surprised that FWS, MD, and others acted without getting the prerequisite approvals and seems like it's kind of their own fault for being stuck with 300 'domesticated' sturgeon. while it'd be nice to have the fishery emerge sooner rather than later, i think it's best to leave the debate on route for recovery to the scientists even if they're slowed by a bureaucratic web.
On Monday, January 28, 2013 2:25:40 PM UTC-5, TurbineBlade wrote:
Why not? Anyone fishing for brown/rainbow trout around here is actively supporting the stocking of non-native species.....the sturgeon appear to meet this criterion (at least genetically), so why be ambivalent?
Stock it! Genetic integrity be damned! ;)
Gene