Potential good news for future brookies

[Jfey]

A cool future for brook trout, even in era of climate change

Pilot study shows trout habitats are more resilient to warming temperatures than predicted

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/02/26/3049117/a-cool-future-for-brook-trout.html#storylink=cpy

Regardless of what you believe is behind rising temps, this is the first positive article I have read about climate change and trout in a while.     

[MBB]

Interesting article, thanks for sharing.

[Big J]

Just posted up that article cause I didn't see your post, but I just removed it.

Thought it was interesting them saying brook trout habitat are more resilient then what was previously thought.  Seems like everyone wants to make brookies out to be wimps, but in reality they can handle acid rain much more effectively then bows (maybe browns too, but I'd have to dig up the article).

[Mudwall Gatewood 3.0]

Interesting and thanks.

The comments following the article are a hoot!

[Holmes]

Brookies can indeed surive lower PH than the other trout species. They seem more resilient in general in their habitat. A couple of rivers here in the SNP used to have pops of browns that were wiped out, but the brookies allways made a come back.

Just posted up that article cause I didn't see your post, but I just removed it.

Thought it was interesting them saying brook trout habitat are more resilient then what was previously thought.  Seems like everyone wants to make brookies out to be wimps, but in reality they can handle acid rain much more effectively then bows (maybe browns too, but I'd have to dig up the article).

[Jfey]

Interesting and thanks.

The comments following the article are a hoot!

Yes, I enjoyed reading them also.

[Transylwader]

but in reality they can handle acid rain much more effectively then bows (maybe browns too, but I'd have to dig up the article).

J, we don't get acid rain in Cape Town (Joburg however gets dumped on and people lose paint off their houses!!!) but I most certainly can vouch for the reason brookies cannot live in Saffa:
The Cape Nature Conservation tried to introduce brookies unsuccessfully to the streams in DuToitskloof (just outside CapeTown) on several occasions and it was determined that our streams were too acidic (PH was <7.5) I am not sure if acid rain is any good for them either. On the US side of the brookie debacle, I have read as well as watched documentaries on Nat Geo that acid rain is no good for them...
Ol Skool Harry Murray 1986

Can't find the short clip from Appalachian trail vid regarding acid rain in the Smoky's done recently highlighting the Ohio Valley Industrial Plants creating acid rain that precipitates across Appalachia and wreaks havoc. Acidic water kills Sal Font. 

[Big J]

but in reality they can handle acid rain much more effectively then bows (maybe browns too, but I'd have to dig up the article).

J, we don't get acid rain in Cape Town (Joburg however gets dumped on and people lose paint off their houses!!!) but I most certainly can vouch for the reason brookies cannot live in Saffa:
The Cape Nature Conservation tried to introduce brookies unsuccessfully to the streams in DuToitskloof (just outside CapeTown) on several occasions and it was determined that our streams were too acidic (PH was <7.5) I am not sure if acid rain is any good for them either. On the US side of the brookie debacle, I have read as well as watched documentaries on Nat Geo that acid rain is no good for them...
Ol Skool Harry Murray 1986

Can't find the short clip from Appalachian trail vid regarding acid rain in the Smoky's done recently highlighting the Ohio Valley Industrial Plants creating acid rain that precipitates across Appalachia and wreaks havoc. Acidic water kills Sal Font. 

Oh I completely agree.  Acid rain does have its affects, especially with unregulated air quality control.  But here in the U.S., air quality is regulated quite well and acid rain is not that "acidy."  Al Gore and EPA do everything they can to gloom up the environmental position that America is in (Job Security maybe) but in reality, everything is just fine.  The EPA is so far up every companies butt that if a company even drips oil on the plant floor, they will be there to fine.  Yes regulation on pollution and acid rain is good and needed, but when its regulated the way it is and people are saying the acid rain is going to kill off all the brookies in the next decade....there is something wrong.

[Mudwall Gatewood 3.0]

You've seen this encouraging news.  Getting better?

http://www.newswise.com/articles/virginia-brook-trout-streams-mostly-recovering-from-acid-deposition


"........but in reality, everything is just fine."  Big J I'll pay top dollar for the hallucinogens.  I am not a follower of Gore or even the EPA, nor am I a critic of either.  But I am curious where we would be without the EPA.  Thoughts?

[Big J]

You've seen this encouraging news.  Getting better?

http://www.newswise.com/articles/virginia-brook-trout-streams-mostly-recovering-from-acid-deposition


"........but in reality, everything is just fine."  Big J I'll pay top dollar for the hallucinogens.  I am not a follower of Gore or even the EPA, nor am I a critic of either.  But I am curious where we would be without the EPA.  Thoughts?

I agree that regulation is needed, but regulation to better natural resources and regulations that are absurd and weave into every day life is another.  EPA started out good.  We need regulation on corporations so that they do not ruin our public and natural resources.  But just like everything else, it can become overboard.  EPA has found its way into the overboard category.  From energy efficient lightbulbs to "Gas Guzzler" taxes on vehicles, the EPA has just turned into another way for the Government to enforce it's beliefs.  And if you ask me, they are quite hypocritical.  You know that energy efficient lightbulbs cause more pollution and energy to make then what they save from normal lightbulbs?  EPA should of stopped at regulating natural resources from people and companies abusing these public resources.  Regulation is good and needed for the environment, but I don't think it's about just regulating natural resources anymore for the EPA.

[Mudwall Gatewood 3.0]

I enjoy it when people make statements like "......another way for the Government to enforce its beliefs."  I still believe we are the Government, every one of us.  When we concur with regime regulations, then government is good.  When we don't, then they are enforcing their beliefs.   Am I a fool for believing that the majority still rules?   

And speaking of "hypocritical", our beloved Old Dominion has been the recent laughingstock of most of the civilized world.  Transvaginal ultrasounding – talk about government intrusion!   I have not followed the issue lately, but hopefully our state boys and girls moved on to something more important.  See, I can disagree with government also.   

[The Dude]

I think there are a lot more spills going unnoticed by EPA than there are being found and fines doled out (although I suspect that you were just being demonstrative in order to make a point).  BigJ, I also respectfully disagree with you about your stance that the EPA should only regulate big businesses and not everyday life.  The fact of the matter is, our everday lives have an impact on the environment.

Here is a recent example:  I gave a tour of a landfill to a class of 16 adult education students the other day.  Eventually we came to the part of the tour where I showed them our gas system and flare.  The landfill (which takes the waste that they produce) gives off gasses as a part of the breakdown of organic material.  This gas is extracted by a gas system and burned by a flare that runs 24/7 at the landfill.  A portion of the landfill gas contains methane, which is a greenhouse gas.  Methane is a bad greenhouse gas in that it remains in the atmosphere for much, much longer than other greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide).  When combusted, methane gives off carbon dioxide and water.  So, by burning the landfill gas, the landfill is keeping methane gas from accumulating in the atmosphere, although it is emitting a greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide).  So, back to the tour, the students got angry at the landfill for flare emissions on the basis of environmental protection and demanded that the landfill should be under further, stricter and harsher regulation - for the sake of the environment.  However, when I pointed out to them that all 16 students drove their own vehicle to the landfill for the tour that day, they seemed confused.  I further explained how they could have carpooled and cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 75%, or more if they just rented a 16 pax van.  Their response was one of indignance and they claimed that they shouldn't be hassled by environmental regulation, just the "big businesses".  Indeed.

Anyway, I am not one to say that we should all ride bicycles to work everyday (I drive an SUV), but I won't sit there and let someone act like the Savior of Mother Nature when they are total hypocrites, either.  It's very easy for people to demand high environmental regulations of others, but the dificulty lies in them conforming to their own rules when it affects their own way of living.

[troutboy_II]

"Transvaginal ultrasounding "

I thought that was a mountain range in South Africa??

TB

[phlyfisher]

You've seen this encouraging news.  Getting better?

http://www.newswise.com/articles/virginia-brook-trout-streams-mostly-recovering-from-acid-deposition


"........but in reality, everything is just fine."  Big J I'll pay top dollar for the hallucinogens.  I am not a follower of Gore or even the EPA, nor am I a critic of either.  But I am curious where we would be without the EPA.  Thoughts?

I agree that regulation is needed, but regulation to better natural resources and regulations that are absurd and weave into every day life is another.  EPA started out good.  We need regulation on corporations so that they do not ruin our public and natural resources.  But just like everything else, it can become overboard.  EPA has found its way into the overboard category.  From energy efficient lightbulbs to "Gas Guzzler" taxes on vehicles, the EPA has just turned into another way for the Government to enforce it's beliefs.  And if you ask me, they are quite hypocritical.  You know that energy efficient lightbulbs cause more pollution and energy to make then what they save from normal lightbulbs?  EPA should of stopped at regulating natural resources from people and companies abusing these public resources.  Regulation is good and needed for the environment, but I don't think it's about just regulating natural resources anymore for the EPA.

ever heard of a little place called the cuyahoga river?? a few years ago when i was a senior in HS they were moving to pass a bill that would allow companies in the greater akron area to DUMP RAW SEWAGE into the river. of course there was a trade off which was if the bill was passed said companies would pay for all residents of akron, and the greater akron area, to go to Akron U for free. that's right, in essence a pay-off for dumping raw sewage into a river in a recovery phase. and if you one was to think the EPA didnt have their fingerprints on this mess, they would be sorely mistaken. makes me sick.thank god the bill never passed, although i hear its going to be on the ballot again sooner than later.  the EPA is a bunch of jack wagons if you ask me, all they are interested in is money..... i have seen it happen first hand in Akron and on the hoga which is one of my home waters. its a miracle i haven't caught on fire yet after wet wading her depths... i think you should re visit this topic. america is much more in the shitter than you think. all along the great lakes is just a depressing shithole of industry and waste. just wait, it wont be long before we are like Taiwan and all of our drinking water is filtered sewage waste....

[Big J]

I think there are a lot more spills going unnoticed by EPA than there are being found and fines doled out (although I suspect that you were just being demonstrative in order to make a point).  BigJ, I also respectfully disagree with you about your stance that the EPA should only regulate big businesses and not everyday life.  The fact of the matter is, our everday lives have an impact on the environment.

Here is a recent example:  I gave a tour of a landfill to a class of 16 adult education students the other day.  Eventually we came to the part of the tour where I showed them our gas system and flare.  The landfill (which takes the waste that they produce) gives off gasses as a part of the breakdown of organic material.  This gas is extracted by a gas system and burned by a flare that runs 24/7 at the landfill.  A portion of the landfill gas contains methane, which is a greenhouse gas.  Methane is a bad greenhouse gas in that it remains in the atmosphere for much, much longer than other greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide).  When combusted, methane gives off carbon dioxide and water.  So, by burning the landfill gas, the landfill is keeping methane gas from accumulating in the atmosphere, although it is emitting a greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide).  So, back to the tour, the students got angry at the landfill for flare emissions on the basis of environmental protection and demanded that the landfill should be under further, stricter and harsher regulation - for the sake of the environment.  However, when I pointed out to them that all 16 students drove their own vehicle to the landfill for the tour that day, they seemed confused.  I further explained how they could have carpooled and cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 75%, or more if they just rented a 16 pax van.  Their response was one of indignance and they claimed that they shouldn't be hassled by environmental regulation, just the "big businesses".  Indeed.

Anyway, I am not one to say that we should all ride bicycles to work everyday (I drive an SUV), but I won't sit there and let someone act like the Savior of Mother Nature when they are total hypocrites, either.  It's very easy for people to demand high environmental regulations of others, but the dificulty lies in them conforming to their own rules when it affects their own way of living.

My bad if I implied big businesses only.  I agree with you on the basis of also enforcing regulations with people too, but like I said, there becomes a point where it is out of control.  This article sums it up nicely.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/31/epa-regulations-violate-constitutional-rights/

I agree with the EPA's original motives, but disagree with what they have turned into.

As far as the ultra sound goes....and I know I will step on several people's toes....but if you are going to have something inside you killed, don't you think you should at least see what that is?  When you have cancer, you don't just go right into surgery, but have test done first to see what is inside you.  The insurance companies require people to have all kinds of test done before you can start cancer surgery, chemo, and radiation....Don't you think the same should be done with a living fetus that is inside a women?  Its proven that women are more likely to keep the baby if they have an ultrasound and see the baby because they are able to think more rationally about what they are about to do.  Did not want to go there Muddwall, but you did bring it up and I have been known as one who speaks his mind.