Usually, a photo of a big brown trout on the /r/flyfishing subreddit is captioned "Nice Slab of Butter" alongside tons of comments about fall colors and hooked jaws. But lately, posts have been showing up on the Reddit page of a very different connotation.
"Hideous Invasive Species," one was titled. "Disgustingly Despicable," read another.
The original post by 409yeager of a brook trout with a similar title was pretty clearly meant as a joke. A top comment from BasicallyBob said "Hold up I'm gonna post a brown trout with the same caption." And then Bob did, setting off the chain reaction of people posting different trout species, but mostly brown and brook trout, with captions including "ew."
Those who travel /r/flyfishing regularly will understand that the dustup was a sarcastic exchange, not a real debate. (Those who really travel /r/flyfishing regularly will think it actually belonged on /r/flyfishingcirclejerk.) But it did kick up an interesting discussion centering on native vs. "invasive" or introduced trout species.
Asked what exactly was going on, user Bubba_gump_shrimp helpfully explained:
"Yep browns came from Europe in the 1800s. The eastern U.S. native trout regions have or had brook trout and grayling."
"The western U.S. has or had native rainbows/cutthroats."
"Now they are inter mingling due to stocking and fucking up native trout populations. A guy fishing in Michigan would be very happy landing a 13in brookie. But someone in Utah would be maybe a bit frustrated. We all love trout but obviously catching a native trout in its native habitat is the main goal."
Bubba_gump_shrimp is correct: In the 1880s, brown trout native to Baden-Württemberg, Germany, and Loch Leven, Scotland were imported to America and stocked in our rivers, where they promptly started eating up and competing with native brook trout in the east and cutthroat and rainbows in the west.
Brook trout, native to the Eastern U.S., were similarly introduced to Western waters by the Federal government at the behest of "Acclimatization" groups springing up from the mid 19th to mid 20th centuries. They, in turn, started munching on and outcompeting native cutthroat and rainbow trout in the west, too.
The point is, in the last 200 years we have reshaped America's trout landscape. And now we're dealing with it, on reddit and on our favorite fly fishing rivers.
The question at the root of this particular discussion is simple: Should we as anglers care more about the fish that have been here a really long time? And less about a European-imported brown trout? Can you appreciate a brook trout west of the Mississippi, or is that heresy and hatred against the mighty 'cutty?
Let's not even get started on natives vs "stocker 'bows."
To me, ecology matters in fly fishing. I can appreciate fishing for native fish in their ranges—in fact, it's one of my favorite things to do as an angler—and I believe those fish should be protected above fish that were planted there. I'm also a realist: The humans who brought invasive fish to our rivers and streams for their own sport are long dead now. I can't have a discussion with them about it. If I did, I'm not sure what I would even say.
Fortunately, we can still appreciate lots of incredible trout fishing across America, whether it's for rainbows in Southern California that might be the ancestors of anadromous west coast steelhead; or a Yellowstone cutthroat that fights like a dinosaur; or a monster brown trout whose great-grandaddy was dumped in the Catskills long ago.
It's good to know where your fish came from, and why—and to care about that. I think that's part of what makes us anglers. But you won't catch me calling a big brown trout I catch names anytime soon.
READ MORE: Local Waterways Are Getting Destroyed by Enormous Pet Goldfish
