I'm all for native species be left alone and being protected from invasive species. But the painting of the brookie (which happens to me my fav) as a ruination of native species rubs me the wrong way.
I have heard and read that brookies and browns have made huge impacts in the West, and seen the impacts of the browns & bows (to a lesser extent) on the East coast. Also read about the brookie dominating browns in Europe, the same browns that dominate the east coast brookies. I really don't think that one species (we are talking trout here) is any more dominate than another, just when new competition enters the ecosystem, the once "King of the castle" now has competition for survival.
I do not agree with this quote from the article
"Brookies have a natural advantage over cutthroat trout because brookies spawn in the fall while cutthroat spawn in spring. Brook trout fry hatch in May in Trappers Lake but cutthroat trout don't emerge from the gravel until August. By the time cutthroat eggs hatch, brook trout are already over 2 inches long, and may be able to eat some of the cutthroat. More importantly, the size disparity gives brookies a huge competitive advantage in their first year of life. "
Kind of like the chicken and the egg.
Wouldn't spring cutthroat fry all ready 2" long eat and out compete fall brook trout fry.